List attachments

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

Even with annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: no bytes are transferred, no local directory is needed, and both no-attachment and attachments-disabled cases return an empty list rather than erroring. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, output fields, metadata-only distinction, cross-reference to download, and edge-case behavior. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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: the input, returned fields, behavior, edge cases, and how the output connects to jira_download_attachment. No critical context is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the issue and profile parameters. The description doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the tool targets a single issue, so the baseline 3 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the files attached to one issue' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from the download sibling by stating 'Metadata only — no bytes are transferred'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to obtain attachment metadata, with the id usable by jira_download_attachment. It also clarifies the no-bytes/no-local-directory behavior, effectively steering agents away from using download for listing. It doesn't explicitly enumerate all alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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