list_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool retrieves a list with filtering capabilities, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be slightly more concise, but overall it's a clean, organized presentation with minimal waste.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels at explaining parameters but lacks important context about the tool's behavior, return format details, and usage guidelines. For a list/search tool without annotations or output schema, more operational context would be beneficial.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics that fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. For all 5 parameters, it clearly explains their purpose, filtering behavior, and specific details like 'case insensitive partial match' for text fields and the allowed values for 'attachment_type'. This adds significant value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get list of attachments with optional filters', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list/search tools on the server like 'list_clients' or 'search_transactions', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_transactions' and 'list_clients' available, there's no indication of when this attachment listing tool is appropriate versus other search or listing operations. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to use it.

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