list_attachments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the shape of each entry ('what each is, the rails it fits, its states and moving parts'). However, it says nothing about the read-only/static nature of the data, ordering, size, or pagination for a reference listing.

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 identifies the resource first, with the example list and usage note following economically. The parenthetical examples are dense but each one earns its place by concretizing the attachment types.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by sketching the returned structure (identity, compatible rails, states, moving parts) and by naming the consuming tool. Given a static, parameterless reference list, this is nearly sufficient, though ordering and size remain unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema or description to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics.

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 names a specific resource (attachments a build can mount on rails/M-LOK slots) and enumerates concrete examples (optics, backup sights, carry handle, vertical grip, light), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is implicitly differentiated from generic sibling list tools like list_references by tying the content to the build domain, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 gives clear downstream context: 'Pass them to build_gun as params.attachments,' which tells the agent why and when to call this tool relative to the build_gun sibling. It stops short of stating exclusions or alternative sources for the same data.

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