Get Issue Attachments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the tool returns attachment metadata/URLs or file content, which is a critical behavior given the existence of issue_download_attachment. The description merely rephrases the schema parameter.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple, with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits the important distinction between listing attachment metadata and downloading content, which is a gap in contextual completeness for selecting the right sibling tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the issue_id parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds nothing beyond 'by its id', so it meets the baseline but does not enrich the 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('attachments of a Yandex Tracker issue'), and the scope ('by its id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_get_comments and issue_download_attachment, making the purpose 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 implied usage is clear: use this when you need an issue's attachments. However, it fails to explicitly mention the relationship with issue_download_attachment (which likely downloads actual content) or provide any 'when not to use' guidance, leaving potential ambiguity.

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