Attachments

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

The description includes a delete operation, which is inherently destructive, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction between the description's stated behavior and the annotation, making the tool's safety profile misleading.

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 succinct and well-structured. A one-line summary is followed by a compact table that conveys per-operation arguments and notes without redundant prose. Every element 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?

The tool is complex with four operations and many parameters, and there is no output schema. The description explains the download behavior (metadata and bytes, savePath) but does not describe return values for list, upload, or delete, nor error conditions. This leaves gaps for the agent, though the table covers parameter requirements well.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: filePath is resolved from local:// URIs by the harness, project is required for #ref or wiki slug, and download writes to savePath when given. These details enrich parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'List, upload, download, or delete attachments across work items and wiki pages.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like comments or wiki.

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 table provides clear usage context for each operation, listing required and optional arguments and notes (e.g., 'project required for #ref or wiki slug'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the per-operation breakdown gives strong guidance on how to use the tool.

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