list_issue_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the risk of disabled attachments (404) and lists the returned fields, which adds transparency. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but 'List' implies it; also no side effects are mentioned. This is adequate given the simple operation.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and include only essential details (return fields, risk warning). No unnecessary verbiage, making it highly efficient.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact fields returned (`id`, `name`, `size`, `download_count`, `browser_download_url`) and also warns about the 404 risk. This is comprehensive for a list operation with three well-documented parameters, leaving no significant gaps.

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 100% with all parameters (repo, index, owner) described including defaults. The description only reiterates 'by its `index`' without adding additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Since schema already covers parameter meanings, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'List the attachments on one issue by its `index`.' It specifies the resource (attachments on an issue) and distinguishes from sibling attachment operations by mentioning the `id` is used by get/edit/delete_issue_attachment, implying this is the listing step.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating the `id` is used by get/edit/delete tools, suggesting when this list tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. other attachment tools or provide exclusion criteria, falling short of explicit guidance.

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