list_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose some behavioral traits: it lists metadata, indicates whether bytes are downloaded, and notes 'deterministic forward pagination'. However, it does not mention read-only status, auth requirements, or what 'archived' means, leaving gaps in behavioral 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a succinct pagination note. Every word earns its place, with no redundant 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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it defines scope, includes metadata details, and specifies pagination behavior. It could add return shape or error conditions, but given the simplicity, it is adequate and slightly above minimum.

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 compensate. It mentions pagination but does not explain the limit, cursor, or chatId parameters beyond what the schema already shows. This is a significant gap given there are three parameters, only one of which is required.

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' with a clear resource ('archived messages in a chat that carry an attachment') and enumerates attachment types. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_attachment (which likely fetches a single attachment) and get_history (which lists messages generally).

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?

It states the tool is for listing chat messages with attachments, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the 'explicit alternatives' bar for a 5.

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