list_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the readonly nature via the tier tag and the GET method. However, it does not explain pagination behavior (cursor parameter), rate limits, or what happens with empty results. The tier adds some context but is 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 concise with two sentences: one functional and one with endpoint/tier. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and endpoint but lacks details on pagination (cursor usage), filter syntax beyond the example, and the structure of the response (what fields are returned). It is adequate but not complete for agents needing full context.

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 description adds no information about parameters beyond what is already in the input schema. While the filter parameter has a schema description, the cursor parameter is undocumented. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 the tool lists attachments (photos, quotes, invoices, documents) linked to jobs, clients, or other records. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint, and distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying the resource type (attachments) and linking to other records.

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 implies usage for listing attachments related to various records but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or search_by_type. The tier hint is useful but not enough for clear decision-making.

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