Find mail attachments

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

The description explains that it scans messages using a notmuch query and supports filtering by type. While readOnlyHint is already in annotations, the description confirms read-only behavior by using 'find' and does not contradict any 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 well-structured with an introductory line, usage guidance, and parameter list. It's slightly verbose but every sentence provides value. Could be tightened slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., fields for attachment rows). While the parameters are well-covered, the lack of output details is a gap for completeness, especially given the tool's 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: query (notmuch query), scope (default scope context), type (filter examples like pdf, image, doc), and limit (max rows). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it finds attachments across a whole search, not just within one message, and distinguishes it from mail_list_attachments for single messages. The verb 'find' and resource 'attachments across a whole search' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage examples are given (e.g., 'all invoices from 2025') and it directs users to use mail_list_attachments for single-message attachments. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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