List Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (sorted relative paths plus per-extension count summary) and the non-markdown filter scope. It does not discuss ordering key or behavior in very large vaults, keeping it at 4.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: scope first, return value second, usage third. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return payload (sorted relative paths + per-extension counts), which is the main gap it needed to cover for a two-param read tool. Minor omissions like path root semantics and pagination interplay are handled by the schema.

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 coverage is 100% — both 'limit' (including that counts are still reported when truncated) and 'extension' (with/without dot) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Enumerate') plus precisely delimited resource ('every non-markdown file in the vault — images, PDFs, audio/video clips'), explicitly excluding notes/canvases/Bases. That exclusion is what separates it from list_notes and read_canvas without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives three concrete use cases (audit assets, find duplicates by name, pick targets for find_unused_attachments) and explicitly hands off to a sibling for the follow-up action. It lacks an explicit 'use get_attachment instead if you want to read one file' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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