add_attachment_to_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, file size limits, supported file types, whether this operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the attachment is added, what the response looks like, error conditions, or important constraints. Given the complexity of file upload operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 both parameters (run_id and file_path) having clear descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides about these parameters, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Add an attachment') and target resource ('to a test run'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_attachment_to_case' or 'add_attachment_to_plan', which have similar structures but target different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple attachment-related tools in the sibling list (add_attachment_to_case, add_attachment_to_plan, add_attachment_to_plan_entry, add_attachment_to_result), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those other attachment tools.

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