Get Issue Images

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses significant behavioral details: filters to specific image formats, returns base64 ImageContent, uses filename extension fallback for ambiguous MIME types, and skips images over 50MB with an error summary entry. This provides an agent with a rich understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 and well-structured: a front-loaded main statement followed by three precise, information-dense sentences. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return format (base64 ImageContent), what is filtered out, and the error handling for large images. This is complete for a simple read-only tool with a single parameter.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the issue_key parameter, including an example and return behavior. The description adds little beyond the schema, so per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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', the resource 'images attached to a Jira issue', and distinguishes from sibling jira_download_attachments by emphasizing 'images only' and returning 'inline image content'. This makes the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 clear context that the tool is for retrieving image attachments for direct rendering, implying use for vision tasks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like jira_download_attachments or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of being fully explicit.

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