jira_construct_download_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the URL is short-lived (with ttl parameter) and returns a JSON structure. However, it omits error behavior, such as what happens if the attachment is not cached or the key is invalid. This is a minor gap.

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 well-structured with a summary line, usage context, and clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence is informative, no redundancy. It is concise yet complete.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), so the description does not need to detail return values beyond the high-level JSON fields. It covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and return types adequately. Missing only minor error handling details.

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%; each parameter has a description. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'filename' must match exactly as returned by sibling tools and reinforcing the ttl_minutes maximum (10). This aligns with baseline expectations for high 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 begins with a clear verb ('Return a short-lived authenticated download URL') and resource ('cached Jira attachment'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_download_attachments and jira_construct_upload_endpoint by specifying its purpose for clients needing an HTTP URL instead of an MCP resource URI.

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 the intended use case ('for clients that need a regular HTTP URL instead of an MCP resource URI') and the prerequisite ('attachment must already be present in the in-memory cache, typically by running jira_download_attachments with return_content=true'). It could be improved by explicitly mentioning when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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