xcresult_list_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation and specifies the output content (names, types, indices), but does not explicitly state that no changes are made to the xcresult file. However, given the non-destructive nature implied by 'list', this is sufficient.

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 sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and output, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List all attachments') and follows with relevant details.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (attachment names, types, indices). Given the simplicity of the tool and existence of related siblings (xcresult_export_attachment), the context is sufficient for an agent to understand how to use the output. Minor room for improvement (e.g., hinting it returns a list).

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds context about output but not about parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade accuracy but adds no parameter-specific value.

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 uses a specific verb ('List all attachments') and clearly identifies the resource ('for a specific test') and output details ('names, types, and indices for export'). It distinguishes from siblings like xcresult_export_attachment and xcresult_get_screenshot, which focus on exporting or retrieving a specific attachment.

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 usage before exporting attachments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like xcresult_export_attachment or xcresult_get_screenshot. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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