list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about the content scope: loose images, files, and bookmarks from the Files tab, excluding formal documents. This helps set expectations for what items will be returned.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence conveys the resource, scope, and exclusion in about twenty words. The main idea is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a clear sibling distinction, the description covers the key decision-making context. It does not mention pagination or return shape, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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 already documents workspace_id and origin fully. The description adds no detailed parameter semantics beyond confirming that this operates within a workspace, which is adequate given the schema's completeness.

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 identifies the specific verb ('list'), resource ('attachments' described as loose images, files, and bookmarks), and scope ('shared in a workspace'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_workspace_files by explicitly excluding contracts/invoices/proposals, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 names the relevant alternative (list_workspace_files) and states what it does not cover: contracts/invoices/proposals. This gives the agent an explicit when-not rule and points it to the correct sibling for those file types.

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