list_attachments

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

The description states 'Read-only,' confirming the readOnlyHint annotation, and adds details beyond annotations: the types of attachments ('PDFs, snapshots, etc.') and the behavioral fact that each result has a key that can be used downstream. This adds meaningful context without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase earns its place: the main verb, the resource, the exclusion of notes, the read-only nature, and the key usage. No redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is listed, what is excluded, the read-only safety, and how the results are to be used. No critical behavioral gaps remain.

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. It references 'an item' and the parameter is named item_key, which implies the parameter identifies the item whose attachments are listed. However, it does not explicitly define item_key's format or how to obtain it, leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('file attachments'), and clarifies scope ('filed under an item'). The explicit exclusion 'not its notes' distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_notes, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'not its notes' gives a clear when-not, and the statement that each result's key can be passed to download_attachment or get_fulltext signals when to use this tool (to obtain attachment keys for downloading or full-text retrieval). It does not explicitly name alternatives beyond notes, but the context is sufficient.

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