get_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a download action and the destination directory, which is useful, but it does not mention potential side effects, file handling, or error conditions. The description adds context but not extensive behavioral transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states action and destination. However, given zero parameter documentation and no annotations, it leaves out important details like required permissions, file format, or behavior when the attachment does not exist, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. The description mentions 'by id' but does not clarify what ticket_id and attachment_id look like or how they relate. With zero coverage and only bare parameter names, the agent lacks guidance on format or purpose beyond the names.

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 ('Download'), the resource ('a specific Jira attachment'), the identifier ('by id'), and the destination ('into the ticket's log directory'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_ticket or search_confluence.

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 indicates a specific use case but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a ticket_id and attachment_id. It implies usage without explicit context or exclusions.

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