jira_get_attachment_meta

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds the concrete set of metadata fields returned, which is useful context, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for missing attachments, or size/pagination limits.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no wasted text. It is arguably under-informative rather than verbose, but structurally clean.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the fields. For a single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, with only routing guidance missing.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema (including its source, jira_list_attachments). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (attachment metadata) and even enumerates the returned fields (filename/size/author/download url). It is clearly distinct from sibling write tools like jira_upload_attachment or jira_delete_attachment, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint, that the id comes from jira_list_attachments, lives in the input schema rather than the description, so an agent reading only the description gets no selection guidance.

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