insync_list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral guarantee beyond that: listing does not open or mark the message read, which matters in a secure-messaging context. Missing only rate-limit or pagination behavior, which is not implied.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, return shape, and downstream chaining, plus a side-effect caveat. Front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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?

Covers input provenance, the shape of the return (name and position), and the next tool to call, plus the non-mutating guarantee. With no output schema present, the description still tells the agent what comes back, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the compact/full view enum. The description restates the master_id source and explains the returned position, which is useful chaining context but adds little beyond the structured fields. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (listing files attached to a secure message) and keys it to a master id sourced from insync_list_messages. An agent can distinguish it from insync_list_messages, insync_get_message, and insync_download_attachment without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: get master_id from insync_list_messages, then pass the returned position to insync_download_attachment. It doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g. for documents, which have their own list/download pair), but the positive usage chain is unambiguous.

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