List Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the response shape '{ items, pagination }', which is useful, but does not disclose ordering, default page size behavior, or error cases. It does not contradict 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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and directly states the response envelope, earning 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?

Given the five parameters, no output schema, and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the resource scope and the response shape, and the schema covers parameter details. It could mention the required fields (resource, object_id) but they are visible in the schema, so the description is sufficient for effective use.

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 description coverage is 80%, with detailed descriptions for page, page_size, and verbosity, plus enums for resource and verbosity. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource type 'attachments' along with the parent resource types (epic, user story, task, issue, wiki page). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like attachment_upload, attachment_download, and attachment_delete.

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 implies the use case (listing attachments on a given resource) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no comparison to sibling tools such as comment_list or wiki_page_list.

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