jira_read_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behaviors: images return as blob, other files as base64, and files over 500KB return only metadata. This gives the agent clear expectations about output variations, though it omits error handling and authentication requirements.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes: purpose, return format, and size threshold. No filler or redundant content.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, return format, and size limit. It lacks explicit error-case handling, but the tool is simple enough that the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for attachmentId with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Read a specific Jira attachment by ID.' This clearly identifies the action and target. It also distinguishes itself from sibling jira_list_attachments by focusing on reading a single attachment's content rather than listing.

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 implies usage when an attachment ID is known and content is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like jira_list_attachments or state when not to use this tool. The size-limit note provides some contextual boundary, but not a direct usage guide.

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