outlook_list_task_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the pagination contract ('has_more=True means pass next_cursor back for the next page') and the shape of returned items. It omits details like default page size or cursor lifetime.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the two following sentences each deliver a distinct actionable fact (download routing, pagination). No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields and the pagination flag, so an agent knows what it gets back. It is nearly complete, missing only coverage of the optional 'list_id' parameter and the 'count' control.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the pagination cursor ('next_cursor' back-and-forth) and implies 'task_id' via 'on a To Do task', but 'list_id' and 'count' are never mentioned, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List attachments on a To Do task') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, size, content_type). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'outlook_download_task_attachment', which it explicitly names as the follow-up.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use 'outlook_download_task_attachment' with an id from this result to save content, which is a concrete when-to-use-next instruction. It does not state any when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), so it stops short of a 5.

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