List attachments of an issue/MR

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds value by specifying it scans both description and comments, covers issue/MR/epic, and returns ready-to-use URLs for gitlab_read_attachment. It does not contradict annotations, and the added detail goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's action, scope, and output without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value (attached files/screenshots with URLs for gitlab_read_attachment). It covers the target types and scanning behavior. Minor gaps exist (e.g., none of the nuance about group_id being required for epics), but these are covered in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to act.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions scanning description/comments and targeting issue/MR/epic, which echoes parameter meanings but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 scans an issue, merge request, or epic and returns attached files/screenshots with ready-to-use URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_read_attachment (which reads a single attachment) or gitlab_upload_file (which adds attachments).

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 implies usage for discovering attachments on issues/MRs/epics and explicitly points to gitlab_read_attachment as the consumer of the returned URLs, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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