list_issue_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List attachments') without detailing return format, pagination, whether full attachment data or just metadata is returned, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure beyond the name itself.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also lacks information about pagination, ordering, filtering, or any special behaviors. For a simple list operation with minimal schema information, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and expected response.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (workspace_id has a description, but id does not). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify that 'id' refers to the issue ID or to explain any constraints on the parameters. It does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 'List attachments on an issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_attachment' (single) and 'delete_attachment' (delete). It identifies the scope (attachments on an issue) and is easily differentiated from other list tools such as 'list_comments'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_attachment' or 'delete_attachment'. There are no explicit usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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