outlook_list_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns IDs, names, sizes, and content types, which is helpful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, permissions, or limitations (e.g., attachment size limits).

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?

The description is a single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. It avoids unnecessary detail, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing return fields separately) for scanability.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what it does and what it returns. However, it could be more complete by noting that the message_id should be obtained from a prior message fetch.

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%, yet the description does not explain what 'message_id' means (e.g., format, how to obtain it). It only reiterates that the tool lists attachments on a message. More context on the parameter would help agents use it correctly.

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 ('List attachments on a message') and specifies the return fields (IDs, names, sizes, content types). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'outlook_download_attachment' which downloads rather than lists.

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 listing attachments on a given message, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., outlook_download_attachment for downloading, outlook_attach_to_draft for adding) or explain prerequisites like message_id availability.

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