list-event-attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the metadata qualifier and no additional behavioral context such as pagination side effects or authorization needs, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, resource, and metadata scope efficiently, letting schema and annotations carry the remaining detail.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool, the description plus schema and annotations cover invocation essentials: required eventId, pagination semantics, and safety characteristics. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related resource-specific attachment tools, but that is not critical for correctness.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameters already include detailed descriptions, including pagination behavior via cursor and maxItems. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('attachments of a calendar event'), and adds the qualifier 'metadata' so the agent knows it returns metadata rather than content. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-mail-attachments or get-mail-attachment-content.

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 intended use is implied by the resource and metadata qualifier, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it does not mention that attachment content retrieval would require a different tool, though no such sibling exists for calendar events.

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