list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it returns 'file metadata, not file contents', which clarifies the output behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, filtering options, and output clarification. Every part earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand 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's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a clear purpose and behavioral context. With annotations covering safety and scope, and schema covering parameters, the description adds necessary context about metadata vs. contents. It could slightly improve by mentioning pagination (implied by limit/offset) but is largely complete.

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 6 parameters. The description mentions filtering by contact, MIME type, and date range, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic details beyond it. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Query') and resource ('message attachments') with specific examples (images, videos, audio, documents). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_messages' by focusing specifically on attachments rather than general messages, and clarifies it returns metadata not file contents.

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 implies usage through the filtering parameters (contact, MIME type, date range), suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_messages' or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is contextual but not explicit.

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