Download Issue Attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral detail that the file is returned as an 'MCP embedded binary resource,' which clarifies the output format. It does not discuss authorization, file size limits, or streaming behavior, but these are not expected to be critical given the annotation coverage.

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 gets straight to the point. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action, containing no unnecessary words.

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?

With readOnlyHint annotations, an output schema, and fully described parameters, this simple download tool is adequately specified. The description covers the essential behavior (downloading as a binary resource), and the schema fills in prerequisite details. There is no missing critical context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with each parameter (issue_id, attachment_id, file_name) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('Download') and identifies both the resource ('attached file') and the output format ('MCP embedded binary resource'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_upload_attachment, issue_delete_attachment, and issue_get_attachments (which lists attachments).

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 itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the schema parameter descriptions (e.g., 'returned by issue_get_attachments') imply a dependency on first listing attachments, giving implicit sequencing guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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