List Sent Email Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns metadata (filename, size, content type) and a time-limited download URL, which is significant because the URL expires and requires handling. This goes beyond the annotation and is helpful for the agent to anticipate the tool's output.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every element is useful: what it lists, how to identify the email, and what the output contains. 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 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return shape, including the time-limited URL. The schema covers parameter details, and the read-only annotation covers safety. It lacks explicit mention of pagination behavior, but the schema provides that. Overall, it's complete for typical use, with a minor gap in not indicating that attachments might be paginated or how to consume the URL.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (emailId, after, before, limit), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by noting that the emailId comes from send-email or list-emails, clarifying the expected source. However, it doesn't add meaning to pagination params or constraints 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 the tool's function: 'List all attachments from a specific sent email' – a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by specifying sent emails (not received) and listing all attachments, distinguishing it from get-sent-email-attachment (singular). The mention of source tools (send-email or list-emails) provides useful context for where the emailId comes from.

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 gives context on when to use it: for attachments from sent emails, specifically those created via send-email or list-emails. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the clear reference to sent emails versus the sibling list-received-email-attachments implies the appropriate usage. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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