get_note_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a direct read/list operation, but does not describe permissions, empty-result behavior, pagination, or response shape beyond the attachment categories.

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 that states the action and value proposition with no wasted wording.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read/list tool, the description covers what is returned at a high level (images, audio, file attachments) and why to use it over full details. It could be slightly more complete about response structure, but no output schema exists and the core need is sufficiently covered.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema explaining the note ID as a decimal string. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb (列出) and names the exact resource types: images, audio, and file attachments within a note. It also distinguishes itself from the full-detail tool by saying the caller does not need to guess fields from complete details.

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 phrase “不需要从完整详情中猜字段” clearly signals when to use this tool instead of fetching full note details, but it does not explicitly name get_note as the alternative or state exclusions.

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