get_email_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default folder and the returned fields, implying a read-only listing, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, size limits, or whether inline attachments are included.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by clearly labelled Args/Returns/Example blocks, so an agent can parse it quickly. The example merely restates the required parameter and adds little, and the INBOX default is repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with an existing output schema, the definition covers purpose, parameter sourcing, and a concrete call example. Only behavioral caveats like pagination or attachment handling are missing, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that email_id identifies the email and notes folder defaults to INBOX. It does not clarify accepted folder name formats (e.g. nested paths or custom labels), leaving one gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get list of attachments for a specific email') and the Returns section enumerates only metadata (index, filename, content_type, size), which implicitly separates it from the write-oriented siblings download_attachment and save_attachment.

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?

It tells the agent where the required email_id comes from ('from list_emails or search_emails'), which is a useful chaining hint. It stops short of explicit routing such as 'use download_attachment to fetch the file', so the alternative for acting on the result is left to inference.

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