get_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it specifies that returns are metadata only (not file content), mentions pagination and filtering capabilities, and implies a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a safe operation, leaving gaps for a mutation-heavy context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clarifying details. Sentences are efficient, with no wasted words. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the 'Returns' section more seamlessly, as it feels appended rather than integrated.

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 context: no annotations, 3 parameters with full schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, what attachments are, and clarifies metadata vs. content. However, it lacks usage guidelines and some behavioral details (e.g., auth needs), which slightly reduces completeness for a tool in a potentially complex API environment.

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 documents all parameters (page_number, page_size, extra_filters). The description adds marginal value by implying filtering capabilities ('with optional filtering') and mentioning 'API syntax' for extra_filters, but doesn't provide syntax examples or clarify relationships beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for high 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 purpose: 'Get all attachments/files with optional filtering' and specifies that attachments are files associated with Productive entities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on attachments rather than comments, tasks, people, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'quick_search' which might also retrieve attachments, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It mentions that attachments are associated with various entities, but doesn't specify if this tool should be used over sibling tools like 'get_tasks' (which might include attachments) or 'quick_search' for finding attachments. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.

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