list_email_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return format (list of attachments with names and sizes), but does not cover permissions, email source scope, or what happens if no matches are found. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 Args and Returns sections. Each sentence is relevant, but the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. No redundant information.

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 output schema exists and parameters are well-described, the tool is largely self-contained. It lacks details about which mailbox is searched (likely inbox) and does not mention related tools like save_email_attachment for subsequent actions, but still provides a complete functional overview.

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 input schema provides only titles with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds concrete examples for account, clarifies subject_keyword's role, and explains max_results with its default. This significantly enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 'List attachments for emails matching a subject keyword.' It specifies the action (list), resource (attachments for emails), and condition (subject keyword). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_emails and save_email_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 usage through the action and parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings. It provides no exclusions or context for selection.

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