List Page Attachments

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not describe pagination behavior, sort defaults, or error conditions, which would be useful for a list operation.

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 efficient: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every line serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary fluff. The front-loaded purpose aids quick scanning.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return format, pagination semantics, or how filters combine. It is insufficient for an agent to fully predict the tool's behavior beyond the schema and annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 7 parameters with brief comments, but most are redundant with the schema's titles. The mediatype example ('image/png') adds some value, but sort and status lack allowed values. Overall, minimal compensation.

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 is explicit: 'List attachments on a page' identifies the verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_attachment (single attachment) and delete_attachment (mutation).

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, such as get_attachment or list_page_properties. There are no exclusions or mention of filter combinations. It simply states the operation without context.

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