getAttachment

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Show attachment.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, returns a specific format, or has side effects. This is a major gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential details while providing no useful structure; every word fails to add value beyond the tool name.

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, no annotations, and a nested parameter object, the description gives almost no context. It does not state what the tool returns, how to interpret the response, or any prerequisites, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain that pathParams contains format and attachmentId, nor what values they expect or how they affect the result.

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 'Show attachment' names a resource and a verb, but 'show' is ambiguous—it does not specify whether it retrieves metadata, content, or a thumbnail. It also fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like downloadAttachmentToLocalFile or getIssueStatuses.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many attachment-related tools (updateAttachment, deleteAttachment, downloadAttachmentToLocalFile, etc.), but the description gives no context for choosing this one.

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