get_attachments_for_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. It states 'Get all attachments' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated (implied by limit/offset parameters but not stated), or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool, making it easy 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieval with optional pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, this leaves the agent with incomplete information to operate it effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (run_id, limit, offset). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, such as explaining what 'attachments' include or how pagination works. With high schema coverage, 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 'Get all attachments for a test run' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('attachments for a test run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_attachments_for_case' or 'get_attachments_for_plan', which have similar patterns 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid run_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_attachment' (singular) or 'get_attachments_for_test', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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