List Received Email Attachments

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

Beyond the `readOnlyHint` annotation, the description discloses that the download URL is time-limited and specifies the return metadata (filename, size, content type), adding valuable behavioral context. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then return details and usage context. No wasted words.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (attachment metadata), the time-limited download URL, and the intended source of emails. Pagination is documented in the schema, so the description is complete for selecting and invoking the 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 the schema fully documents the parameters. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 ('List') and resource ('attachments from a specific received (inbox) email'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like `get-received-email-attachment` (singular) and `list-sent-email-attachments` (sent instead of received). It also mentions the return type, adding clarity.

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 phrase 'Use for emails listed by list-received-emails' provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear guidance without explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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