trello_get_card_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It clearly states the read-only action ('Get all') and enumerates attachment types (files, links). However, it does not disclose details about the response format, pagination, or field filtering behavior beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information.

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 read operation, the description is short but does not explain the return structure or the effect of the optional 'fields' parameter beyond the schema. It adequately conveys the tool's primary function but leaves room for more detail about output format, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including the optional 'fields' parameter. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the detail.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('all attachments') and scope ('for a specific Trello card'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card or get_card_actions, which retrieve different data types. The clarification that attachments include files and links adds precision.

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 the tool's use case (retrieving attachments for a specific card) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. With a name and description that are self-explanatory, the context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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