attach_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It indicates mutation ('attach') but omits details about side effects, permissions, file size limits, or whether attachments are appended or replaced. The mention of 'absolute file path' implies a server-accessible location, but this is not explicit.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and required inputs without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no enums) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is somewhat adequate but lacks details on return values and behavioral context (e.g., error handling). Without annotations, more transparency is expected for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by naming parameters ('issue key', 'absolute file path') beyond raw string types. However, it does not specify format (e.g., key pattern) or constraints (e.g., file size, path restrictions), which limits usefulness.

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 ('Attach a file') and the resource ('Jira ticket'), with specific requirements ('issue key and absolute file path'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ticket or get_ticket, which serve different purposes.

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 tells what inputs are needed but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context about prerequisites (e.g., ticket existence, file accessibility) are mentioned.

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