List case attachments

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already communicates safety. The description adds that the operation returns attachment metadata and download URLs, providing some context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that includes the method name and return type without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return type (metadata and download URLs). It does not enumerate metadata fields or list format, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap, and annotations plus schema cover other aspects.

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 fully describes the only parameter, case_id, with an integer type and description 'Test case id' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'TestCase.list_attachments' and says it returns attachment metadata and download URLs, clearly identifying the verb (list), resource (case attachments), and output. This distinguishes it from sibling attachment tools for plans, runs, and executions.

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 scope is implied by the tool name and description mentioning 'case', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kiwi_plan_list_attachments or kiwi_run_list_attachments. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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