notes_list_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' conveys that the tool is read-only and returns metadata without side effects, which is useful, but it does not describe pagination, output format, authorization requirements, or behavior when the note does not exist.

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 with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, it does not explain what 'metadata' includes, and without an output schema the agent must guess at the return shape. Some usage guidance relative to sibling tools would also improve completeness.

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 help explain the note_id parameter. The phrase 'in a specific note' minimally connects note_id to the target resource, but it adds no detail about the expected format, source, or how to obtain a valid note_id. For a single self-explanatory parameter this is adequate but not rich.

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 ('metadata for all attachments in a specific note'), clearly stating the operation and its scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notes_list_notes or notes_get_note, which operate on notes rather than 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid note_id. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'in a specific note,' which is not enough to help an agent choose between this and related notes tools.

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