get_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly states the operation (list metadata) and the required email_id format (folder:uid with example INBOX:1), but it does not mention side effects, permission needs, or error behavior. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately provides the essential input format information. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the only non-obvious input detail (email_id format) and need not describe return values. The main gap is the lack of any usage guidance or distinction from sibling tools, which is a minor omission given the highly self-descriptive operation.

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 is the only source of semantic meaning for the single parameter. It provides a clear format contract (folder:uid) and a concrete example (INBOX:1), adding substantial value beyond the bare string type in 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 uses a specific verb ('列出' / list) and a specific resource ('附件元信息' / attachment metadata), clearly indicating the tool lists attachment metadata for a given email. The word 'metadata' also distinguishes it from the sibling download_attachment, which implies retrieving actual file content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as download_attachment, read_email, or get_thread. The description gives context about the input but does not mention any exclusions or selection criteria among sibling tools.

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