list_attachments_with_safety

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context by stating that the tool provides a 'policy-based safety assessment for each file,' which indicates the output includes safety evaluations. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, describe any side effects, or clarify the nature of the policy. This is adequate but not fully transparent for a tool with no annotation support.

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: 'List attachments for a message and provide policy-based safety assessment for each file.' It is front-loaded with the main action, contains no redundant information, and every phrase 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?

The tool has a simple input schema (one parameter) but no output schema or annotations. The description conveys the core purpose but does not detail the return structure or behavior when no attachments exist. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but leaves gaps regarding output details and edge cases.

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 input schema provides a full description for the only parameter ('The Gmail message ID containing attachments'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: 'List attachments for a message and provide policy-based safety assessment for each file.' This specifies a concrete action (list) and resource (attachments for a message), and distinguishes from siblings like download_attachment_safe or validate_attachment by emphasizing listing plus safety assessment.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as download_attachment_safe or validate_attachment. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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