list-issue-attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned attachments. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with data.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of listing attachments (which may involve multiple files, formats, or metadata), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., file names, sizes, URLs), how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete operational 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('project_id' and 'issue_id'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these are needed to identify the issue, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('file attachments for an issue'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-issue-attachment-upload-url' or 'list-issues', which might also involve attachments or issues, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list-issues' or 'get-issue', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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