get_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so excellently. It states the return payload ('Returns the image itself'), the supported formats and size limit (png, jpeg, gif, webp up to 5 MB), and the failure behavior for unsupported types ('videos and other file types are rejected with an explanatory error'). This is thorough and sets accurate expectations for the agent.

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 remarkably concise—three sentences in total—yet packs all essential information: purpose, return type, when to use, and constraints. It is front-loaded with the core action, then the use case, then limitations. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or 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?

For a one-parameter download tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (the image), when to invoke it (based on get_issue attachments), and what constraints apply (formats, size, error behavior). There is no missing information an agent would need to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself already provides comprehensive parameter semantics (the attachment_id description explains it is a numeric ID from get_issue, NOT the issue key or filename, with an example). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 precise verb and object: 'Download an image attached to a Jira issue, for visual analysis.' This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools (whoami, get_issue, get_comments, get_issue_context, search_issues), none of which download binary content. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it when a ticket's Attachments section (from get_issue) lists a screenshot or other image relevant to the task,' and gives a concrete example (UI bug report). It also implicitly defines the boundary by noting only images (png, jpeg, gif, webp) up to 5 MB are supported, so an agent knows not to use it for videos or other file types. This is clear, concrete guidance with no ambiguity.

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