attachments_for_url

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it searches across the workspace and returns attachment records, but does not mention read-only behavior, pagination via 'first' parameter, or the effect of the 'workspace' parameter. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage example. No superfluous words.

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?

With 3 parameters and an output schema (not described), the description covers the primary purpose well. However, it lacks details about pagination, optional workspace filtering, and whether the tool is read-only. Adequate for a simple lookup but could be more complete.

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 0%. The description mentions 'URL' but does not explain the 'first' (pagination default) or 'workspace' (optional filter) parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for understanding parameter purpose.

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 clearly states it's a reverse lookup for attachment records pointing to a URL, with concrete examples (Slack thread, PR, external doc). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_attachments and link_url_to_issue.

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 says when to use it (finding which issue references a given URL) and implies it's not for general attachment listing. It provides useful context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use.

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