list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It contributes scope semantics (what the set excludes, the 'portal Files tab' mental model) but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or volume limits of the result set.

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 sentence with an em-dash gloss; the scoping exclusion is front-loaded and every clause earns its place. No boilerplate or repetition of the tool name.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the key missing piece — what is and is not in the result. With no output schema present it could also sketch the returned shape, but the content-type framing largely compensates.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents workspace_id and origin fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no format, enumeration, or default guidance), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource returned (loose images, files and bookmarks in a workspace) and explicitly contrasts it with list_workspace_files, which covers contracts/invoices/proposals. The listing action itself is only implied by the tool name rather than stated verb-first, but the scope is 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?

It states the exclusion boundary against a named alternative — the contracts/invoices/proposals belong to list_workspace_files — which effectively routes the agent to the right sibling. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or any prerequisite (e.g. session/origin requirement).

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