list_event_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Returns both items and pagination metadata'), field details, and explicit pagination mechanism. While it does not mention rate limits or authentication, it is transparent about the output and partial results.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose sentence, a sentence on return structure, usage context, and pagination details. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema existing), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, return value structure, and pagination. It explains how to use pagination and the context of attachments, making it complete for an AI agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it mentions pagination in context but does not introduce new parameter semantics. The schema already documents each parameter thoroughly.

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 'List all file attachments and links for an event (or a specific contribution).' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('attachments'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'download_attachment' by indicating the listing precedes downloading.

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?

Provides clear sequence guidance: 'Use this to discover what files are attached... before downloading them with download_attachment.' However, it does not explicitly exclude other contexts or list alternatives among the many sibling tools, but the distinction from the most related sibling is sufficient.

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