list_contact_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the response contains filenames and that they feed another tool, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, permissions/auth, or behavior when a contact has no 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the lookup and followed by the next-step hint. Nothing is redundant and the API-version tag is compact context.

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?

For a single-parameter list tool with no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: purpose, input, and the follow-up tool are all covered. Only return-shape details (count, ordering, empty case) are missing, which is minor here.

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% for the single required contactId parameter, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, validation, or scoping detail about contactId beyond what the property entry provides, holding it at the baseline.

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 ('Get list of attachments for a contact'), scoped clearly to one entity type. It implicitly separates itself from the singular get_contact_attachment by pointing at it as the next step, though it never explicitly says 'this lists all attachments.'

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 sentence 'Use the filenames from the response with get_contact_attachment' gives an explicit chaining instruction naming the correct sibling tool. It does not cover when-not-to-use or whether the list is paginated, but the selection context is clear.

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