List plan attachments

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

The description discloses the return content (attachment metadata and download URLs), adding value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It confirms the read-only nature indirectly and gives the agent an expectation of the response shape, though it omits details like whether URLs are temporary or if pagination exists.

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 front-loads the key information ('TestPlan.list_attachments') and then states the return value. Every word contributes value with no wasted text.

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 a single parameter, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and the return type. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the mention of 'attachment metadata and download URLs.' It does not discuss any edge cases, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 schema already provides a description for plan_id ('Test plan id'), and the description adds no further parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the description is not required to compensate, 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 ('list attachments') and the specific resource ('TestPlan'), and it adds the outcome ('Returns attachment metadata and download URLs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list attachments for cases, runs, or executions solely by the resource type mentioned.

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 when to use this tool (when you need attachments for a test plan) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Unlike a tool with a named alternative, it relies on the tool name and title to convey the scope, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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