list_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It conveys that this is a listing operation and that download status is returned, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or whether any state is changed.

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 concise sentence that starts with the verb, identifies the resource, and lists the important return fields. There is no redundant or unnecessary content.

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?

The description is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool with fully documented parameters. It states what is listed and which fields are returned; the main gaps are the lack of an explicit read-only statement and detailed output format, but these are minor for this kind of tool.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already explains messageId, mailboxName, and accountName. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 and resource: 'List all attachments for a message', and enumerates the output fields. It clearly differs from read/save-related siblings by being a listing operation, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools.

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 implied: an agent would call this when it needs attachment metadata for a message before reading or saving attachments. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and alternatives such as get_message or read_attachment are not mentioned.

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