get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Show' and specifies the exact output fields. It also explains where the parameter originates. It doesn't mention error handling or permissions, but for a simple retrieval that's acceptable; no contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 two sentences plus an Args block, with the primary purpose stated first and the parameter explanation directly after. No fluff; every sentence conveys necessary information.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter nature, the presence of an output schema, and clear linkage to get_issue for finding the ID, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. Sibling tools are differentiated, and the return fields are listed.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: it defines attachment_id as the ID shown in get_issue's attachments list, giving the agent actionable knowledge on how to obtain the value. This goes beyond the schema's bare type/title.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource 'attachment', then enumerates the returned fields (name, size, type, author, download URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like update_attachment and delete_attachment.

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?

It says the attachment_id is shown in get_issue's attachments list, which provides clear context for when to use this tool (after retrieving the issue). However, it doesn't explicitly exclude the alternate attachment tools or state conditions for non-use, so a 4 rather than 5.

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