attachment_list

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

No annotations are provided, but description discloses read-only nature ('Read-only; safe to retry') and return structure. Adds transparency beyond schema. Could mention pagination or limits if any, but current detail is sufficient for a list tool.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose, usage guideline, return format + requirement. Includes example without extra fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Without output schema, the description fully documents the return format (array of objects with fields) and usage example. Enough for an agent to invoke correctly. No missing context.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds critical constraint 'Provide exactly one of taskId or projectId' and includes an example usage, which helps avoid misuse.

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 has a specific verb 'List' and resource 'file attachments on a task or project'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling attachment_save_to_path by stating not for content retrieval. The return format is also specified.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use ('Do not use to retrieve attachment content') and what alternative to use. Also provides usage condition: 'Provide exactly one of taskId or projectId'. Clear guidance.

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