Download Attachments

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description still adds substantial new information: contents are returned base64-encoded with no server filesystem access, images come back as EmbeddedResource blobs while other MIME types come back as TextContent with a base64 payload. The stated rationale (clients dropping non-image blobs, issue #1419) tells an agent exactly what to expect from the response shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the return-format detail. The second and third sentences are somewhat dense, but each carries decision-relevant information (no filesystem access, why non-image attachments are text-encoded), so little is wasted.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does, covering encoding, per-MIME-type content types, and the client-compatibility constraint. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already provides a full description plus a regex pattern with concrete examples ('PROJ-123'). The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for complete schema coverage is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download attachments from a Jira issue') with clear scope, and the image/non-image handling hints at the boundary with the sibling jira_get_issue_images. However, it never names that sibling or otherwise explicitly differentiates itself, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement — download attachments when you need issue attachment contents. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to jira_get_issue_images for the image-only case, which is a natural alternative given this tool's image handling.

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