list_test_result_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes that the tool returns metadata and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or pagination limits beyond the schema parameters. Adequate but could be more informative.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action and return values, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence is purposeful and aids 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return fields (id, name, contentType, size), which is helpful. It also references a sibling tool. Missing error conditions or handling of invalid testResultId, but overall fairly complete for a simple listing tool.

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 already provides descriptions for all 3 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on how to use page and size effectively.

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 tool lists attachments for a test result and specifies the returned metadata (id, name, contentType, size). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_test_result_attachment_content by indicating it's for discovery before downloading content.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before calling get_test_result_attachment_content, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like list_test_case_attachments for test cases.

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