list_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a listing operation returning name/type/size, and where to get the message_id, which implies a safe read. It does not state permissions, whether attachments are downloaded, or any limits — gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed only by the one piece of parameter context an agent needs. Nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and a single-parameter read tool is simple. It covers purpose and parameter provenance adequately; only permission/behavior nuance is absent.

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 0%, so the description must define the sole parameter, and it does: message_id is the Gmail message id, with a concrete provenance hint (search_threads). That compensates well for the otherwise bare schema, though no format example of the id itself is given.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List attachments on a Gmail message') and even enumerates the returned fields (name, type, size in bytes). It is clearly distinguishable from the download/read siblings, though it never names them explicitly. Clear purpose, but no direct sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives statement, but the note that message_id comes 'from the Gmail connector's search_threads' implies the required upstream workflow. That is useful implied guidance rather than stated guidance.

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