itglue_list_attachments

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

The description discloses that the tool returns only metadata and that the actual file must be fetched via the download URL out-of-band. This is valuable beyond the input schema, especially since no annotations are provided. It could mention pagination or rate limits but is still strong.

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 concise at two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded: first sentence states the action and scope, second sentence explains the return value and caveat.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return type (metadata fields). However, it omits mentioning pagination behavior or error scenarios. It is fairly complete for a list tool with good schema coverage.

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% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions output fields but not input details.

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 ('attachments on a parent resource'), and clearly states the scope ('Returns metadata only'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like itglue_delete_attachment by focusing on listing.

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 implies that this tool is for listing metadata and that file download must be done separately (out-of-band), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other list tools or search tools. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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