h1_list_report_intent_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only action via the verb 'List', but provides no details about pagination, response format, whether attachment metadata or content is returned, or any authentication requirements. The description is too sparse to inform the agent of expected behavior beyond the basic operation.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it lacks any supplementary structure or context. It earns its place but is minimal.

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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks important context. It does not explain what attachments are (e.g., files submitted with a report intent), how they relate to other sibling tools, or what the response contains. For a list operation, some expectation of the return value would help, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a borderline adequate description.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage: intent_id is described as 'Report intent ID'. The tool description adds no further meaning to this parameter. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it.

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 'List report intent attachments' clearly states the action (list) and resource (report intent attachments). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like h1_list_report_intents (which lists intents) and h1_get_report_intent (which gets a single intent). However, it does not elaborate on the scope or relationship to other attachment operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, workflow context, or situations where this is preferred over h1_get_report_intent or h1_list_report_intents. The description is purely a definition with no usage direction.

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