list_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full transparency burden. It discloses ordering semantics (entry n corresponds to mark n), the table exclusion, and implies a one-to-one mapping. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are conveyed.

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 three concise sentences: definition, ordering rule, and exclusion/alternative. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no repetition 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?

For a list operation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, how entries map to marks, what is excluded, and a pointer to get_attachment. It lacks an explicit return shape but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%: all three parameters (id, name, folder) are already well-described, including priority and disambiguation. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: enumerating a note's non-text attachments (images, scans, drawings, files). It differentiates from siblings by explaining the per-mark correspondence and explicitly pointing to get_attachment for individual access, making the purpose specific and distinct.

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 gives explicit usage context, including an important exclusion (tables are not listed because their mark becomes pipe rows) and names get_attachment as the alternative for examining one attachment. This tells the agent when to use this tool vs. the sibling tool.

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