list_vendor_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 clarifies that the tool lists attachments and that file download is not available, which prevents a common misunderstanding. However, it does not mention authentication, pagination, or response structure, leaving some behavioral details undisclosed. The added caveat about Phase 1 strengthens transparency beyond the tool name.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and endpoint, while the second adds a relevant limitation without any redundant wording. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple list endpoint with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it lists and a key limitation. However, it does not detail the returned fields or any pagination/filtering behavior, and the 'Phase 1' reference is somewhat ambiguous. Despite these gaps, the tool's simplicity and clear name make the description reasonably 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage. The description correctly omits parameter information, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 '取得廠商上傳文件列表' (get vendor uploaded file list) and specifies the endpoint GET /v1/vendors/attachments. It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_vendor_users or list_bundles.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or name alternatives. However, the note that file body download is a binary endpoint not implemented in Phase 1 serves as an implicit limitation, indicating that this tool is for metadata listing only and not for downloading files. This provides some usage guidance, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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