get-issue-attachment-upload-url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets a URL but doesn't describe what happens next (e.g., the URL is time-limited, requires a separate HTTP PUT, or what permissions are needed). For a tool that enables file uploads, this lack of operational context is a significant 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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the key 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?

For a tool that enables file uploads with 5 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the workflow (e.g., this returns a URL that must be used separately), behavioral constraints (e.g., URL expiration), or what the output looks like. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why all parameters are required or how they interact). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('pre-signed URL for uploading file attachments to an issue'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-issue-attachments' or explain how this tool fits into a multi-step upload workflow, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), workflow context (e.g., this is step 1 of a 2-step upload process), or when other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., 'list-issue-attachments' for viewing existing attachments).

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