get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the attachment is returned inline for visual inspection and that external URLs are refused. It could be improved by mentioning error handling or what happens with non-image attachments, but it adequately covers key behavioral traits.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently conveys usage guidance. It is clear and well-structured, though slightly informal in one phrase, but overall concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains when to use, the exact parameter usage, and constraints, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing to pass the URL exactly as received from get_issue's attachments array, reinforcing the schema's requirement and providing practical context.

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 tool fetches a screenshot or image attachment and returns it inline, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool deals with fetching attachments.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: after get_issue when the reporter mentions a screenshot, the description references a visual problem, or to confirm a UI bug visually. It also specifies constraints (only platform-served URLs allowed), providing clear guidance on when and how to use it.

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