list_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the meaningful failure modes: 403 when note_id is not owned by the caller and 404 when it does not exist. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or result limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two short sentences, the primary purpose front-loaded, and the error conditions following immediately. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing a call.

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 return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose plus the two failure conditions. The only gap is result-set behavior such as pagination or ordering for a tool that can plausibly return many attachments.

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 0% for the single note_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add important meaning — that note_id must be owned by the caller and must exist — but never defines what the identifier is or its format, leaving part of the parameter semantics unstated.

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 a note's file attachments') and scopes it to the caller's note, which cleanly separates it from the related but distinct get_attachment_download_url sibling. It stops short of naming any alternative tool, so it is clear but not differentiating in the way a 5 requires.

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 use case is implied by the resource it operates on, and the 403/404 notes tell the agent when the call will fail, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_note or get_attachment_download_url. That is minimum-viable implied usage rather than real routing advice.

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