list_attachments

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It clarifies that attachmentIds are 'stable' (non-volatile) and lists returned fields. As a listing tool, its read-only nature is implied, but explicit statement would improve.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage context, alternative recommendation. No redundant text; highly focused and 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?

No output schema, but description names returned fields (attachmentIds, filenames, etc.) and mentions stable IDs. For a listing tool, this is adequate; lacks pagination info but not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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% (all parameters described). The description adds value for emailId by specifying the 'FOLDER::UID' format beyond the schema's mention of return from get_emails. Other parameters gain no additional meaning.

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 the tool lists attachments with stable IDs, filenames, content types, and sizes. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling save_attachments by recommending that tool for bulk downloads, making the purpose clear and differentiated.

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 advises using this tool before get_attachment_content or save_attachment to discover attachments and their IDs, and explicitly prefers save_attachments for downloading all at once. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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