list_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without indicating what is returned (metadata? full attachments?), whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, or any prerequisites. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It follows the pattern of stating the action and object, making it easy to parse. Size is appropriate for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin for an agent to understand what the result looks like or what side effects (if any) exist. A complete description would mention that it returns a list of attachment metadata and perhaps note that it does not download contents.

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 clarify parameter meaning. The phrase 'for a message' helps infer that message_id identifies a message, but it does not explain the format, source, or constraints beyond the name. Minimal added value.

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 'List attachments for a message' has a specific verb ('list') and resource ('attachments'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_attachment' which likely retrieves a single attachment. It also scopes the operation to a message, which is clear 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this to enumerate attachments before fetching specific ones' or contrast with 'get_attachment'. The context is implied but not explicit.

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