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 only states the return format (dict with status, message, list of attachments) and does not disclose read-only nature, error handling, pagination, or side effects. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 relatively concise, with a clear structure using headings for prérequis, args, and returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary words.

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 annotations, the description should be more comprehensive. It misses behavioral traits like idempotency, authentication requirements, and what happens with invalid doc_id. The output schema is assumed but not detailed enough to ensure complete understanding for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for sort (column de tri) and limit (nombre maximum de résultats), and links doc_id to list_documents prerequisite. However, it lacks detail on valid sort values, default behavior, or constraints, leaving gaps.

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 it lists attachments of a Grist document, using specific verb 'Liste' and resource 'pièces jointes'. It is distinct from sibling tools like download_attachment or get_attachment_info, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list tools.

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 provides a prerequisite (list_documents to obtain doc_id) and notes optional parameters for sorting and limiting. It gives clear context for when to use, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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