add_attachment_to_run

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

Beyond the annotations (all false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: automatic zipping of directories and a 256MB upload limit. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent or if attachments can be overwritten.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and contains no extraneous information.

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 the tool's simplicity, two parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential aspects well. It could mention required preconditions (e.g., run must exist) but is adequate.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning by noting that directories will be automatically zipped, enhancing the file_path parameter semantics.

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 adds an attachment to a test run, which is a specific action and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_case or add_results.

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 provides context about automatic directory zipping and size limits, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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