messages_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'cursor page' for pagination behavior and transport trivia (POST/gRPC/socket) that doesn't help the agent; it omits roll-up details like ordering or default page size.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the parenthetical of HTTP/gRPC/socket endpoints is low-value for an agent deciding how to call the tool, and the brevity leaves required semantics unspecified.

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?

Six parameters at 17% coverage with an unexplained enum and no output schema means the definition asks the agent to guess at filtering and pagination. The description does not fill that gap, so it is incomplete for the tool's actual complexity.

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 17%, leaving limit, cursor, chatId, channelId and includeDeleted undocumented in both places. The description says nothing about how the types enum codes map or how cursor pagination is consumed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific resource – 'a chat's file-bearing messages' – which distinguishes it from generic siblings like messages_list and messages_history by scoping to attachments only. It lacks an explicit verb, but the noun phrase plus 'cursor page' makes the retrieval intent clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to pick this over messages_get_media or messages_search when hunting for files in a chat.

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