get_attachment_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the stable URL's session requirement, the presigned URL's time-limited nature, and the possibility of null when the asset isn't uploaded. This goes far beyond the schema and contextualizes the tool's behavior for both human and agent use.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement and bullet points for the two URLs. Every line carries useful information, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. It is concise without sacrificing necessary details.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers its purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral nuances comprehensively. The output schema exists, and the description already explains the return values, so no critical information is missing. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly defining issue_id as 'Task UUID' and attachment_id as 'Attachment UUID (from list_attachments)'. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because the schema is already descriptive. Baseline 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 'Get URLs for an attachment' and explains that it returns two distinct URLs with specific purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_attachment_image (which fetches bytes) and list_attachments (which lists 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each URL: the stable URL for embedding in Plane-rendered HTML, and the presigned URL for agents to fetch bytes. It also warns that the stable URL does not accept API key auth, implying agents should use the presigned URL. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, which prevents a 5.

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