list_recruiting_attachments

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, indicating safe, read-only operation. The description adds context: which target kinds are supported, that attachments are 'directly attached,' and that review attachments are intentionally excluded. No contradictions. This extra context raises the score above baseline.

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 sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds an important exclusion (review attachments). No filler, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema present and simple list operation, the description is nearly complete. It covers supported targets and exclusions. It could optionally mention pagination or default limit, but the schema fills that gap. No major missing context.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters (target, limit). The description adds no new parameter details, only reiterating the supported target kinds which are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool lists files attached directly to Recruiting targets (vacancy, candidate, applicant, opinion). It distinguishes from other list tools by specifying attachment focus and explicitly notes that review attachments are unsupported, which differentiates it from tools like list_recruiting_comments.

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 when to use (listing attachments) and explicitly states when not to use (review attachments unsupported). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other purposes (e.g., comments, activity), though the context is implied. A 4 is appropriate as it gives clear context without explicit alternatives.

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