list_attachments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with pagination parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has pagination parameters (page, per_page) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how pagination works, what the return format is (e.g., list of attachment objects), or any error conditions. For a list tool with pagination, this leaves the agent guessing about key behavioral aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (taskId, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool operates on a specific task, which is already covered by the taskId parameter's description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List all attachments') and the target resource ('for a specific task'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_task_attachment' or 'list_tasks', which would be needed for a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tasks' (which might include attachments) or 'get_task' (which might return attachment details). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.