List Issue File Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds details about the return format (array of attachment objects with specific fields) and behavior when no attachments (empty array). This provides useful context beyond annotations.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and subsequent sentences add usage guidance and return details. Every sentence is purposeful.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers: what it does, when to use it, alternatives, and what it returns (including empty case). No gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'issue_id'. The tool's description does not add any additional information about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 lists issue file attachments, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternative tools for adding attachments (upload_file) and getting full issue details (get_issue).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you need to inspect or enumerate files attached to an issue.' Also provides exclusions: 'To add a new attachment, use upload_file instead. To retrieve full issue details that include attachments alongside other fields, use get_issue instead.' This clearly guides the agent.

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