get_attachments

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

The description discloses that the tool is based on DART viewer HTML scraping (not official API), and mentions the kordoc conversion engine. With no annotations provided, this covers key behavioral traits. It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but the scraping approach is clearly stated.

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 two sentences with front-loaded purpose. It is concise and includes technical details (scraping, conversion engine). Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior well: dual modes, scraping basis, conversion engine, and parameter roles. It is missing error handling or pagination details, but the core use case is well addressed.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds context about the mode behavior and conversion engine, but does not significantly enhance per-parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: to list or extract attachments from Korean disclosures (HWP/PDF/DOCX/XLSX) using two modes (list and extract). It specifies the resource (attachments) and the action (list or extract to markdown), and distinguishes the two modes effectively.

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 explains when to use each mode (list vs extract) and provides parameter guidance (e.g., filename vs index, truncate_at, outline_max_items). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or compare with siblings, but the sibling tools are unrelated to attachments, so the context is sufficient.

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