list_mail_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description covers the return fields (name, size, content_type, kind) and the two kinds of attachments. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or behavior regarding nested attachments or pagination. It is moderately transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list the return fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (fields and kinds). However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., array), ordering, or whether recursive attachments are included. It is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for advanced use.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'message_id'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'attachments of an indexed mail', and specifies the two types of attachments (external files and inline MIME parts). It also lists the returned fields, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like 'list_folder_contents'.

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 mail must be indexed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mail_attachment' (for a single attachment) or other list tools. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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