list_transaction_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the function ('List attachments') without mentioning potential side effects, ordering, pagination, or return format. For a read-only operation this is less risky, but the lack of any behavioral detail is a notable gap.

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 sentence of six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It clearly states the operation and scope, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it does not clarify what the response contains (e.g., attachment metadata) or differentiate from list_attachments, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (transaction_id) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, merely restating the scope. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter clearly.

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') with a clear scope ('for a specific transaction'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_attachments (which likely lists all attachments) and get_attachment (which retrieves a single attachment). It fully explains what the tool does.

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 the tool is used to list attachments scoped to a transaction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_attachments or assign_attachment. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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