Get Issue Images

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: MIME filtering with an extension-based fallback for application/octet-stream, and a 50 MB per-file cap that silently skips with an error entry. This is exactly the kind of edge-case disclosure that prevents surprise failures; only the absence of any count/pagination limit keeps it from a 5.

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 one-line summary followed by three tight, information-dense sentences; the MIME list and size cap each earn their place. Slightly verbose in the parenthetical format list but no filler.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the return shape (base64 ImageContent renderable by clients, plus error entries for skipped files). Combined with the filtering and size-limit rules, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage including format example and the return semantics, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the issue_key parameter itself, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome when coverage is high.

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?

Specific verb (Get) + resource (images attached to a Jira issue) + output form (inline image content). The explicit 'images only ... non-image attachments are excluded' clause distinguishes it from the generic jira_download_attachments sibling without needing to name it.

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?

Clear context is given: use this to get renderable images for LLM vision, as opposed to raw attachment handling. It states an exclusion (non-image attachments) but never explicitly names jira_download_attachments as the alternative for non-image or binary retrieval, so the routing rule is inferred rather than stated.

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