list_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavior. The verb 'List' makes the read-only nature reasonably clear, and mentioning download URLs describes the key output. But it does not disclose pagination, response envelope, error cases, or any permission requirements that may apply to accessing attachments.

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, concise sentence that leads with the action, names the target resource, and states the valuable output detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool is simple, requiring only two parameters that are fully documented in the schema, and the description covers what the tool returns (attachment download URLs). Since there is no output schema, it would be slightly stronger to mention pagination or the exact response shape, but for a straightforward list operation the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both resource_type and resource_id well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the enum and field docs provide, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('files attached to an IT Glue record'), and it adds the useful output detail that download URLs are included. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling resource-specific getters and from create_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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs the attachments (with download URLs) for a given IT Glue record. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or what alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_document, get_configuration) might offer instead.

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