list_entity_attachments

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral: no pagination, no ordering, no return shape, no auth or rate-limit context. The bar is lower with annotations, but there is essentially no added context to credit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it partially restates the enum values already present in the schema.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits anything about result shape, pagination, or ordering, which an agent would need since no output schema exists.

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 only 50%: entityType is documented and enumerated, but entityId is left bare. The description does not compensate by explaining that entityId is the id of the referenced project/portfolio/goal, so the undocumented half stays unexplained.

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) and resource (files attached to an entity), and scopes it to project/portfolio/goal, which separates it from list_issue_attachments and get_entity_attachment. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never contrasts itself with the many nearby alternatives (get_entity_attachment for a single attachment, download_entity_attachment, list_issue_attachments). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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