List Received Email Attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a 'time-limited download URL' but does not specify the expiry duration. It also lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or permissions. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 sentences: first states core functionality, second adds return value and usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 4 parameters fully described in schema and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and links to parent tool. Could mention pagination order or default limit, but overall sufficient for a simple list tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context linking emailId to 'list-received-emails' and mentions pagination parameters vaguely, but the schema already documents them sufficiently. Does not add significant meaning 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?

Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'attachments from a specific received (inbox) email', and specifies returned metadata (filename, size, content type, download URL). Differentiates from siblings like 'list-sent-email-attachments' by specifying 'received' and 'inbox'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for emails listed by list-received-emails', providing clear context and prerequisite. Does not explicitly exclude sent emails or mention alternatives like 'list-sent-email-attachments', but the context strongly implies the appropriate use case.

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