Get issue attachment

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds important behavioral details: images are returned viewable, other files as base64 with metadata. This informs the agent about the return format. No contradiction with 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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds critical detail about return types. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 required params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations describing safety, the description covers the key usage guidance and return behavior. It could add error handling or size limits but remains adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers 50% with description for file_id. The tool description adds context by explaining where to find file ids, complementing the schema. issue_id lacks schema description but the tool context implies it is straightforward (numeric ID). Overall, the description adds value beyond the input schema.

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 downloads an attachment of an issue, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the return format for images vs other files, adding clarity beyond the title. No sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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 advises finding file IDs in an issue's attachments array, which is helpful context for using the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, though no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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