get-attachment-list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the filter (only 'general' type files come back) and by enumerating the response shape. It does not mention permission requirements or ordering/pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the note about file types is well placed, but the required-parameters block restates the schema verbatim and the JSON example duplicates the same two fields, adding length without information. The return-fields list is long yet arguably justified since no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly (totalCount, data[] with id, name, size, mimeType, createdAt, creator). For a simple two-param read tool this is close to complete; only error/empty behaviors and whether all files are returned in one page are unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so both required parameters are already documented in the schema with identical wording and identical semantics; the description merely repeats them plus a redundant example. No additional meaning (formats, where to find the IDs) is contributed, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get list of file attachments for a Dooray task') and scopes it to 'general' type files, which separates it from download-all-attachments and get-attachment-metadata in spirit. It never names a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling set (get-attachment-metadata, download-attachment, download-all-attachments). The 'general type only' note is a scoping caveat, not routing guidance.

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