list_attachments

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a list of attachments as reported by the API, and that the numeric ids are for delete. Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by explaining limitations (e.g., no per-step endpoint for test runs) which go beyond the annotation.

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 detailed but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then expanding on addressing rules. Every sentence adds value, though some minor redundancy could be trimmed. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is front-loaded with the most important 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 complexity of three target types with optional step addressing and no output schema, the description covers the mandatory identifier handling and the output's link to delete_attachment. It does not mention pagination or response structure, but these are less critical for a listing tool. The presence of readOnlyHint annotations reduces the need for further behavioral disclosure.

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?

Although the input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, the description adds crucial context about parameter interdependencies: which identifier is required for each target, and that stepIndex is only valid for test_case and test_result. This goes well beyond the schema and is essential for correct usage.

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 that the tool lists attachments of a Zephyr Scale test case, test run, or test result, optionally for a specific step. It distinguishes between three target types and explains the addressing scheme, making the purpose very specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit instructions on which identifier to pass for each target, and notes that step addressing is only available for test_case and test_result. It also mentions that the returned ids can be used with delete_attachment, guiding subsequent actions. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like download_attachment or upload_attachment, which would help the agent decide when to use this tool over others.

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