noteking_list_attachments

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never says whether the operation is read-only, whether it errors on a nonexistent note_id, whether results are paginated or ordered, or what an attachment record contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it spends its brevity on restating the name rather than on information the schema does not already carry.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but it has no output schema and the description does not describe the return value at all — no indication of whether attachments come back as IDs, filenames, URLs, or metadata. Combined with the absence of annotations, an agent cannot fully predict the result shape before calling.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines note_id as the unique note identifier with an exclusive minimum of 0. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: 'List file attachments associated with a note.' That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling operations such as noteking_upload_attachment or noteking_get_note. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g. the note must exist), and no mention of alternatives such as noteking_get_note for note metadata. The only guidance is the implied 'call this when you want a note's attachments,' which an agent must infer from the verb.

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