list_entity_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the resource scope is clear, but it discloses no additional behavior such as permissions, pagination, or response details. For a simple list tool this is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and scope directly, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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 that this is a straightforward list operation and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It does not explain how entity_id maps to the entity type, but the schema's required fields and entity_type description sufficiently fill that gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the entity types already present in the entity_type parameter description and does not add any extra meaning to entity_id or output_format beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('attachments') scoped to project, portfolio, or goal, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling list_attachments that likely targets issues. It adds concrete entity types beyond the tool name, making purpose 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 intended use is implied: call this when you need attachments of a project, portfolio, or goal. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tool (e.g., list_attachments) to use for other entity types, leaving usage mostly inferential.

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