Download Attachment

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals critical behavior: content is base64-encoded, embedded in the MCP response, and large files are not downloaded but return an error. This goes well beyond the annotation and helps set agent expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the main action, second explains the encoding, third gives the size constraint. No redundant or unnecessary details.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers return format (base64 embedded resource), the size limit, and error behavior. The readOnlyHint annotation confirms safety, and the schema fills the remaining parameter details.

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 tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameter, but the input schema provides excellent documentation: example ID, how to find via get_attachments, and a workflow. Since the schema covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra meaning.

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 action ('Download an attachment from Confluence') and the specific output format ('as a base64-encoded embedded resource'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_download_attachments or confluence_download_content_attachments. It also adds a unique constraint (50 MB limit) that further clarifies scope.

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?

It explains the use case (MCP protocol, avoiding filesystem access) and discloses the 50 MB limitation, providing context on when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from other attachment tools.

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