List Tracker entity attachments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context: returns metadata only and that binary downloads are unavailable over MCP due to payload constraints. It does not describe pagination or result limits for large attachment sets.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the key operational constraint. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

Complete enough for a read-only list tool: the schema documents both params, annotations cover safety, and the description covers behavior (metadata-only, MCP limitation) and an alternative route. Missing only pagination/result-size behavior, which is a minor gap given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% (both entity_id and entity_type are documented, including enum-like values for entity_type). The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 when 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (files attached to an entity), and enumerates exactly what metadata is returned (name, size, MIME type, uploader, download URL). This distinguishes it from the sibling tracker_entities_attachments_get (singular) and the tracker_attachments_list variant.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use this tool for raw bytes and names the alternative CLI/SDK command. However, it does not clarify when to use this entity-scoped list versus the sibling tracker_attachments_list, which an agent must infer from the naming.

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