list_attachments_tool

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the result envelope and item fields (data.items with path, size_bytes, mime_type, mtime), but it leaves filtering/recursion semantics and the optional folder/vault behavior implicit.

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 short, purposeful sentences: the first states the tool's scope, the second specifies the returned item shape. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The output schema may cover return shape, but the definition does not explain how the optional vault and folder parameters affect the listing; 'all ... in the vault' is even ambiguous against the folder parameter. For a two-parameter tool this is a meaningful omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had to explain vault and folder, but it mentions neither. The folder parameter's role as a filter and the null vault behavior are entirely undocumented, so a caller cannot reliably invoke the tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a well-defined resource ('all non-Markdown files'), and a scope ('in the vault'), with illustrative types (images, PDFs, audio). The 'non-Markdown' qualifier clearly separates it from sibling list_notes_tool.

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 use for attachment-style files rather than Markdown notes, but it never explicitly names alternatives or gives when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer the context, but routing to list_notes_tool or list_files_tool is left to inference.

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