Transactions List Transaction Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is adequate but no extra value.

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 sentence is concise but under-informative. It meets the minimum but lacks details that would justify the space saved.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., list of attachment metadata, file details). Missing context about required parameters and behavioral hints (e.g., redirect_posted impacts).

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 coverage is 40% (only fields and output_mode have descriptions). The tool description does not explain any parameters. For a 5-parameter tool, the description should compensate, especially for undocumented params like transaction_id and session_path.

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?

Description states 'List transaction attachments', which clearly indicates the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'transactions_get_transaction_attachment' (single) and 'transactions_delete_transaction_attachment' (delete). However, it lacks specifics about the scope (e.g., for a given transaction).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get', 'download', or 'list_transactions'. No mention of required prerequisites (transaction_id) or context.

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