get_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the action without clarifying whether the operation is read-only, what response format to expect, or any required permissions. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and delivers its core message upfront, earning perfect marks for conciseness.

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?

Although the tool is simple with only one parameter, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., metadata, download links). It does not, leaving the agent without essential information about the expected return value.

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 single parameter 'issueKey' is self-explanatory from its name, but the description adds no additional meaning. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining the expected format (e.g., 'PROJ-123') or how to obtain it.

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 tool's function: retrieving attachments for a given issue. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'attachments' with context 'on an issue', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_issue or get_comments.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with similar tools, leaving the usage context purely implied.

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