get_test_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation by using 'Read', but does not mention potential errors (e.g., missing test attachment), format of returned content, or any limitations. This is adequate but leaves room for more transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough to understand the tool's primary function. However, it lacks detail on return format or failure behavior, which could be important for agent usage. Given the low complexity, a 4 is appropriate.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. The tool description itself adds little beyond the schema, though it reinforces the relationship between testTitle and attachmentName. No additional semantics are provided beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the verb ('Read'), the resource ('content of a named attachment'), and the scope ('for a specific test from the last run'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like run_tests and list_tests, which focus on execution and listing, not reading attachments.

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 the tool (to read an attachment for a specific test from the last run) and provides clear context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that no confusion arises.

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