list_attachments

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

Without annotations, the description provides a straightforward account of the tool's behavior: it lists attachments and returns specific fields. No side effects are mentioned, but for a read-only listing tool, this is sufficient and clear.

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?

Two sentences with no superfluous information; every word adds value. The description is front-loaded with the action and immediately specifies return fields.

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 sibling tools, the description could be more complete. It mentions return fields but does not describe the markdown path's base or that both parameters are required. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters (collectiveId and pageId). It only implies pageId via 'for a page,' leaving collectiveId undefined. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 lists attachments for a page and specifies the returned fields (name, size, content type, relative markdown path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_attachment and upload_attachment.

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 implies usage for retrieving attachments but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor prerequisites or exclusions. It is adequate but lacks explicit context.

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