get_wiki_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a listing operation, it is reasonable to assume it is read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 sentence that conveys the main purpose and provides context. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary information, but could be slightly more structured to include parameter details.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at least explain the parameter and what the response contains. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 0% description coverage for the 'pageId' parameter, and the tool description does not explain the parameter's format, constraints, or how to obtain it. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 '列出' (list) and the resource 'Confluence 页面附件' (Confluence page attachments), and provides a specific use case ('适合查找原型图、截图等文件'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_wiki_assets' which likely returns all assets.

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 implicitly suggests when to use this tool (for finding prototype images, screenshots), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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