list_chat_message_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, setting a clear safety profile. The description adds value by noting that the tool resolves channel names and DM participant display names, which is a behavior not captured by annotations. However, it does not mention pagination details (default limit 50) or that results are limited to direct file attachments, which could be inferred. Overall, the description adds some context but is not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second sentence elaborates on parameter details and a value-added feature. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 that the tool has only 2 parameters (1 required), an output schema (not shown but indicated), and annotations are present, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, the supported target kinds, and the name resolution behavior. It does not explain the output format, but that is handled by the output schema. A minor gap is not mentioning that attachments are file-based, but the term 'files' is used. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (target and limit) with 100% coverage. The description goes beyond the schema by explicitly stating that target.kind supports the three conversation types and that the tool resolves channel names and DM participant display names. This adds practical context for the agent on how to construct the target parameter effectively.

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: 'List files attached directly to a Huly chat message target.' It specifies the exact resource and action, and distinguishes from siblings like add_chat_message_attachment (adds attachments) and delete_chat_message_attachment (deletes attachments). The mention of supported target kinds further clarifies scope.

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 context on when to use the tool by listing the supported target kinds (channel_message, dm_message, thread_reply) and the name resolution feature. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_attachments (which might list all attachments in a conversation) or get_chat_message_attachment (for a single attachment). The usage guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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