paperclip_list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds pagination details, output format options, response structure (pagination envelope with item fields), and error handling (401, 404). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections for args, returns, examples, and error handling. It is concise yet covers all necessary details without fluff.

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?

No output schema, but the description fully explains the return format: 'Pagination envelope { items: Attachment[], total, count, offset, limit, has_more, next_offset }' and item fields. Error handling is also covered. Complete for this tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by explaining the response structure and pagination behavior, which is not in the schema. It also provides examples and default values.

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 'List all attachments on an issue', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like paperclip_download_attachment and paperclip_delete_attachment.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when: discovering attachment IDs before downloading or deleting a file' and 'Don't use when: you already have the attachment UUID — use paperclip_download_attachment directly'. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with an alternative.

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