list_task_attachments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what 'List' implies, such as that it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what it returns. The description is bare and adds no safety or side-effect context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable but lacks key context such as what kind of attachments are included, whether pagination applies, and what the response format looks like (no output schema). There are clear gaps but the basic purpose is clear.

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 for both parameters (task_id and project_id), and the description adds no further parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 attachments on a task' uses a clear verb ('List') and resource ('attachments'), and is distinct from sibling tools like upload/delete_task_attachment. It is specific enough, though it does not explicitly state scope (e.g., all attachments) or differentiate from download_task_images.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The usage is only implied by the verb 'List', with no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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