get_work_package_attachment

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

The description adds value beyond readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses that text files return readable text, binary files return embedded base64 MCP resource, the call fails if maxBytes exceeded, and it does not write to disk. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently covers key behaviors.

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 download tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return types (text readable, binary base64), error conditions (maxBytes exceeded), and side effects (does not write to disk). It is complete for its complexity.

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 only 33% (only maxBytes has schema description). The tool description mentions maxBytes behavior but does not elaborate on workPackageId or attachmentId. However, those parameter names are self-explanatory, partially compensating for the gap.

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 the tool downloads one verified attachment from a work package. It uses specific verbs ('Download') and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_package_attachments (listing) and upload_work_package_attachment (uploading).

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 'Use after listing attachments', providing a clear sequential usage context. It explains behavior for text vs binary files and the maxBytes limit, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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