card_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It correctly implies a read-only listing and discloses that results can be narrowed, but says nothing about pagination, result size, permission requirements, or what happens when a card has no attachments.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the trigger condition first and the optional modifiers second. Nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the description gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. The only gap is the absence of any hint about the return shape, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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 all three parameters are already documented in structured form. The description's phrase "narrowed by Trello attachment fields or filter" merely restates the fields and filter params without adding format or default guidance, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (listing) and resource (files or links attached to a card), which clearly separates it from the singular card_attachment_get sibling. It is clear about what is returned without naming that sibling explicitly.

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?

"Use when listing files or links attached to a card" is an explicit trigger condition, and the optional narrowing clause tells the agent how to scope the call. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., card_attachment_get for a single attachment), which keeps it below a 5.

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