Download attachment

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

The description is transparent on its own, but it directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation: it writes a file into the server's media directory and explicitly states calling twice leaves two files. That is a persistent side effect, so the description conflicts with the annotation's read-only claim.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: destination, return value, prerequisite, failure mode, size cap, filename behavior, and non-idempotency. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what is returned (local path), where the bytes go, required environment configuration, refusal reasons, and repeated-call behavior. The only weakness is the annotation contradiction, which is a metadata issue rather than a completeness gap in the description.

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% and already explains attachmentId as coming from jira_list_attachments, not the filename. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning; the 50 MiB and naming details concern the attachment artifact, not the 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 + resource: 'Downloads one attachment INTO THIS SERVER'S media directory and returns the local path.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like jira_list_attachments and jira_upload_attachment by describing the download direction and local destination.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: JIRA_MEDIA_DIR must be set or the call is refused, while jira_list_attachments keeps working. It also states a concrete size limit ('Files over 50 MiB are refused'), giving the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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