List Attachments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by stating it returns metadata for each attachment including file name, content type, and size. It does not contradict annotations. While it lacks details about limit behavior or empty results, the annotation coverage makes this a strong 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a usage context sentence. There is no redundant or unnecessary phrasing.

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 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and good annotations, the description plus schema provide sufficient information for invocation. It clarifies the purpose and return type. A slight gap is not mentioning behavior for records with no attachments or whether pagination is expected, but overall it is complete.

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 100% with all four parameters (limit, table, instance, record_sys_id) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'List' and resource 'file attachments on a ServiceNow record', and specifies the return type (metadata with file name, content type, size). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_attachment_info or upload_attachment.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to discover what files are attached to incidents, changes, catalog items, or any other record.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it misses the 'when-not' element for a top score.

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