get_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and it does disclose a key behavioral trait: the tool does not read file contents, only metadata. It also lists the metadata fields returned. It does not mention ordering, authentication, or rate limits, but the most important behavior is clearly stated.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and output fields, followed by an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only metadata-listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the output fields and clarifies the tool does not expose file content. It could be slightly richer by noting ordering or pagination behavior, but those are partly covered by the schema defaults.

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 baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics; it only describes the output fields, which is relevant but not needed to understand limit, offset, or chat_guid.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the exact resource ('attachment metadata') plus the fields returned (name, type, size, direction, date). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on chats, messages, and participants.

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 clear context: use this to see attachment metadata, not file contents. The caveat 'files themselves are not read' implies when to choose this tool over content-oriented alternatives, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state exclusions.

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