upload_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention file size limits, format constraints, overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or side effects. The description only states the basic action, leaving the agent uninformed about important execution details.

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 concise sentences. The first defines the action, the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous words; adequately front-loaded. Efficient and to the point.

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 is simple (upload + attach), but the description omits return value (e.g., attachment ID), error scenarios, and any constraints (e.g., file size, type restrictions). Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete for a fully informed agent decision. Still, core purpose is clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context ('screenshot, log', 'after bug fix') but does not provide extra meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema already gives (e.g., no explanation of what happens if filePath is invalid or the effect of fileName). Neutral contribution.

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?

Description clearly states the action (upload a file, attach to bug), specifies typical file types (screenshot, log), and sets the context (visual evidence). Unambiguous and distinct from siblings like download_attachment or comment_bug.

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?

Provides a specific use case: 'Use after bug fix to provide screenshot proof.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives. Still helpful for an agent.

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