get_report_intent_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose whether this is a read-only operation, required permissions, rate limits, or details about the return format (e.g., attachments metadata vs. file URLs). The simple statement 'List all attachments' is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the key resource, making it efficient.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks details about what the tool returns (e.g., attachment IDs, file names, metadata). It correctly scopes to 'draft report intent' but could be more complete by indicating the output structure.

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 100% with one parameter (report_intent_id) described in the schema as 'The report intent ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting or validation constraints. Baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'attachments' with a specific scope 'draft report intent'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_report_intent_attachment because it lists all attachments rather than deleting. However, it could be more precise by specifying that it returns metadata or identifiers.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_report_intent_attachment). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow, or conditions that warrant listing attachments.

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