amulen_list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the result (four named fields), which is useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, empty results, or authorization requirements for a remote task.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and including the useful return fields. No filler, no redundancy.

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 tool this covers the essentials, and the field list partly substitutes for the missing output schema. However, with three undocumented required parameters and no mention of how slugs relate to each other, an agent could easily mis-invoke it on a task outside the given board or project.

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 0% for all three required parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It implies task_slug identifies the task, but project_slug and board_slug are never explained — an agent has to guess that they form an addressing hierarchy and must all be supplied together.

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 uses a clear verb+resource phrase ('List a task's attachments') and enumerates the returned fields (id, file name, content type, size), which separates it from the mutation siblings like amulen_upload_attachment and amulen_download_attachment. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name: an agent can infer this is the metadata-listing call versus downloading or uploading an attachment. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisites (e.g. access to the project/board), and no exclusions.

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