Get Tracker attachment metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — this endpoint returns metadata only, not bytes — but says nothing about auth requirements, error cases (missing file_id/issue_key), or size/URL expiry behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one scope caveat an agent would otherwise assume wrong. No filler, though the fragment style (no leading verb) is slightly terse.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the metadata fields. Combined with the CLI-download caveat, an agent has what it needs; only error/permission behavior is absent, which is minor for a read-only metadata call.

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 file_id documented as coming from ``attachments_list`` and issue_key exemplified as ``JUNE-2``. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one attachment's metadata) and enumerates the returned fields (name, size, MIME type, uploader, download URL). It implicitly distinguishes itself from tracker_attachments_list by saying "one attachment's," but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 usefully rules out a nearby capability (downloading bytes is CLI/SDK-only), which is a partial when-not. However it does not state when to prefer this over tracker_attachments_list or tracker_entities_attachments_get, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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