list_attachments

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

No annotations provided, and the description omits behavioral details such as return format (IDs, URLs, or binary), pagination, auth requirements, or potential errors. Without annotation compensation, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it minimally adequate.

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 no output schema and one parameter, the description fails to explain return values or behavior (e.g., empty list vs error). It is incomplete for an agent to confidently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema's trivial '消息 ID' description.

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 action ('列出') and resource ('附件列表'), unambiguously indicating it lists all attachments of a message. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'search_messages'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., message existence), or alternatives. The description lacks any usage context.

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