list_attachments

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

Discloses that only metadata is returned (no file content) and mentions optional filtering and pagination. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. Adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Concise and well-structured. First line states core purpose, followed by usage hint and return details. No redundant sentences.

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?

Covers essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and that pagination is available. Output schema exists, so return details are complete. Could mention how extra_filters work, but schema description partly addresses that.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add significant meaning beyond mentioning 'optional filtering', which is already implied by the parameters. Baseline of 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?

Clearly states the tool lists attachment metadata with optional filtering. The verb 'list' and resource 'attachments' are precise. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tasks, list_people, etc., which operate on different resources.

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?

Provides explicit scenario ('when you need to browse or search attachments') and clarifies that it returns metadata only, not file content. Does not list alternative tools but the context is clear enough.

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