list_event_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it implies this returns attachment metadata rather than content, and directs content retrieval to a different tool. It stops short of stating return format or pagination behavior, which keeps it at a 4.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the resource and its concrete contents, followed by the selection rules and the related tool. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mode selection, and the companion read tool. It is nearly complete; only minor items like pagination behavior are left to the schema's cursor field.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds scoping semantics beyond the schema by explaining the two mutually exclusive lookup modes (issue-wide vs single-event) and their parameter combinations, which clarifies intent rather than merely restating field docs.

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 ("List files attached to events") and immediately enumerates concrete attachment types (log files, minidumps, screenshots, view hierarchies), which disambiguates it from generic event/issue listers. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_event_attachment without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use issue_id to get every attachment on an issue, or project_slug + event_id for a single event. It also names the follow-up tool and when to use it ("Read text attachments with get_event_attachment"), making the list-then-read workflow unambiguous.

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