taiga_wiki_attachments_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'List attachments' without noting read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or return format. This provides minimal transparency beyond the surface action.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it highly concise.

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?

The tool is simple and the input schema is complete, but the description is minimal and does not explain the return structure (e.g., fields in attachment list, ordering, pagination). Since there is no output schema, more context would be helpful, though the description is adequate for a basic list operation.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters (project as Project ID, object_id as Wiki page ID), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('attachments of a wiki page'), distinguishing it from sibling attachment tools for epics, userstories, tasks, and issues. The verb+resource structure is 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?

The description implicitly suggests when to use this tool by specifying 'wiki page,' which differentiates it from other attachment list tools. However, there are no explicit references to alternatives or exclusionary conditions, so guidance is only implied.

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