list_collective_page_attachments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the folder-page case returns items typed 'folder' rather than 'text', and trashed attachments are omitted — details not derivable from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence, then clearly delimited Args and Returns blocks. The folder-page clarification is slightly dense in one sentence but nothing is wasted padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns block is technically redundant rather than required, but it is consistent and harmless. Combined with the two named params and the trash/folder-page behavior notes, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly; only cross-tool routing guidance 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 0% and both parameters are required, so the description must compensate. It names collective_id and page_id and labels both 'numeric', which is the minimum needed, but adds no constraints, formats, or ID-source guidance beyond the schema's integer typing.

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 ('List the files attached to a page') and immediately scopes it: the page's attachments folder plus, for folder pages, sibling files. This is distinguishable from nearby siblings like search_files, list_directory, and get_file without opening a 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?

The description clarifies what is included and that trashed items are excluded, which is useful boundary guidance, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_files or list_directory for finding files. Usage is only implied by the resource scope.

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