jira_list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's "Read-only" restates structured data. The one genuine addition is the scope boundary that no local files are touched. It omits pagination, result-size limits, and whether all attachments are returned.

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?

One compact sentence with the safety qualifier front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with rich annotations needs little, but with no output schema the description should say what "compact metadata" contains (filename, size, author, timestamps?) since that shape is undefined elsewhere. It is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 single parameter (issueKey) has only a regex pattern, no human description. The description says only "for a Jira issue" and never names the parameter, its expected format, or case sensitivity, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("list compact attachment metadata for a Jira issue") and draws a boundary by noting it does not access local files. That boundary implicitly separates it from download/upload siblings, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

"Read-only" plus "does not access local files" hints at when this is appropriate versus jira_download_attachment, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or which alternative to pick. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the negative clause.

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