get_issue_attachment

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the operation fetches metadata and does NOT download file content, which communicates its read-only nature. It also lists the return fields, providing transparency about what to expect. This goes beyond a simple function name interpretation.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the main action, then clarifies what it returns and what it does not do. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of a metadata fetch operation and the absence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It mention the input (including how to get the id), the output fields, and a critical behavioral note (not downloading content). It lacks error handling details but that is not essential for this simple operation.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (owner, repo, index, attachment_id). The tool description adds minimal extra semantic value, only noting that the attachment_id can be obtained from list_issue_attachments. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the added hint is minor.

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 that it fetches issue attachment metadata by attachment_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/edit attachments. It explicitly notes that it does not download the file content, which further clarifies its specific role. The mention of getting the ID from list_issue_attachments also helps the agent understand how to use the tool.

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 when to use it: when you need metadata rather than the actual file content, and it explicitly states what it does not do. It also provides a hint on how to obtain the required attachment_id. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives for downloading content (if any exist), so it falls slightly short of perfect usage guidance.

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