List Attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (listing attachments) and mentions the return metadata, but does not discuss pagination behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, with the first immediately stating the action and output, and the second providing usage context. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or 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?

Given the tool's low complexity and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and the kind of data returned (metadata). It could mention that the response includes sys_id for each attachment, but it is otherwise complete for a listing tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (instance, table, record_sys_id, limit).

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 clearly states the action ('List file attachments') and the resource ('ServiceNow record'), and specifies the returned metadata fields (file name, content type, size). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_attachment_info' (individual attachment) and 'upload_attachment' by focusing on listing multiple attachments.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to discover what files are attached to incidents, changes, catalog items, or any other record.' It effectively tells when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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