Get Page Attachments

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=true). It does not mention pagination behavior, permission requirements, or that it returns metadata rather than file contents. With annotations already covering the read-only safety profile, the description adds no additional value.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. The brevity is appropriate for a simple read-only operation.

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 detailed schema and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention pagination or the option to use either page_id or slug, though these are covered in the schema. The description could be slightly more complete by noting the list-return nature, but overall it suffices for a straightforward read tool.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself mentions no parameters, adding no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents. This meets the minimum viable level.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('attachments for a Yandex Wiki page'). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as page_get and page_get_resources by specifically targeting attachments, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like page_upload_attachment or page_get_resources. It simply restates the tool's function, leaving usage decisions entirely to the reader. No exclusions or alternative pointers are given.

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