apple_mail_list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' prefix is redundant. The genuinely additive term is 'metadata', which signals the tool returns attachment descriptors rather than downloading files. Beyond that, no auth, pagination, or return-shape context is given.

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 with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

This is a low-complexity list tool and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not do much. However, with no output schema and 0% param coverage, an agent still lacks the attachment fields returned and how account/mailbox scope the lookup.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only implies that a single message is targeted. The 'account' and 'mailbox' parameters with their iCloud/INBOX defaults are left entirely unexplained. This does not compensate for the coverage 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 (list) and resource (attachment metadata) scoped to one message. The word 'metadata' distinguishes it from apple_mail_save_attachment, which presumably retrieves actual content. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The phrase 'for one message' implies a mailId is required but does not tell the agent how this relates to apple_mail_get or apple_mail_save_attachment. Only the implicit 'metadata vs content' framing offers any routing signal.

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