jira_list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the listing includes id and download url, which is slightly useful. However, it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and every word earns its place.

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. The description mentions that the output includes id and download url, which is a helpful hint. For a simple list tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could mention usage relative to siblings, but otherwise it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'key' is fully documented in the schema (pattern and example). The description does not add parameter-specific information, but with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'of an issue,' which reinforces that the key parameter refers to an issue, but that is already clear. Score 4 because the description slightly reinforces the parameter context without being redundant.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the attachments of an issue.' It also mentions the return fields (id and download url), which helps the agent understand the output. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like jira_get_attachment_meta or jira_download_attachment, but the purpose is still clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that jira_get_attachment_meta provides metadata or that jira_download_attachment downloads the file. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage contexts.

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