list_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the returned fields and a specific behavioral nuance: 'whether it still resolves in storage.' It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not explicitly state permissions or side effects. Still, for a listing tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core action and result, then providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description provides enough return-value information (attachmentId, alt text, resolution status) and use cases to be actionable. It could mention pagination or whether all images are listed, but for a straightforward listing tool this is adequate.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter fully: documentId is described as 'The document's UUID (as returned by search_documents).' The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond referring to 'a Meet Rupert document,' so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 function: 'List the images embedded in a Meet Rupert document' with specific detail on what is returned (attachmentId, alt text, resolution status). This distinguishes it from sibling attachment tools like create_attachment, download_attachment, and delete_attachment.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to find the id of an image you want to download or remove, or to check a document for broken images.' It gives clear context, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the use cases imply alternatives like download_attachment and delete_attachment.

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