pmg_quarantine_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the read-only nature, parameter mapping (start/end to starttime/endtime), and pmail scoping. However, it omits details like pagination, result limit, or behavior on empty results.

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 four sentences. The first sentence clearly states purpose. The subsequent lines add necessary technical details without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy (e.g., version reference) but overall efficient.

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 existence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: operation, configuration need, parameter mapping, and scoping. Lacks mention of pagination or sorting, but these are not critical for a list tool with schema.

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 only 25% (only proximo_target described). The description adds critical meaning: explains that start/end are Unix epoch timestamps mapped to query params, and clarifies pmail defaults to the authenticated user. This compensates for low schema coverage.

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 it lists attachment quarantine entries (read), specifying the exact resource (attachment quarantine) and operation (list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_quarantine_spam or pmg_quarantine_virus by using the term 'attachment'.

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 mentions a prerequisite (PROXIMO_PMG_* config) and explains the pmail parameter scope, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus other quarantine list tools. No comparisons or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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