Attachments

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

The description adds helpful behavioral details beyond the annotations: download writes files to savePath when provided, and upload resolves local:// URIs through the harness. The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with the delete operation, and no annotation contradiction exists.

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 compact, well organized, and front-loads the core purpose in one clause. The table conveys a large amount of operation-parameter information without unnecessary prose, and every line adds utility.

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 has many parameters and a multi-operation structure, but the operation table plus schema descriptions cover the calling requirements well. It could offer more on return shapes, permissions, or side effects, though it remains sufficient for reliable invocation.

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 of 100 percent means baseline is 3, but the description still adds meaningful value through a required/optional argument matrix per operation. It clarifies the relationship between operation and parameter choice, especially the 'filePath OR fileContent' upload requirement.

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 opens with a precise verb set — 'List, upload, download, or delete attachments' — and scopes it to 'work items and wiki pages.' The operation table further disambiguates each action, and the tool name plus resource clearly separates it from sibling tools like comments and 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 gives clear operational context by mapping each op to required and optional arguments. It implicitly tells the agent when to use an operation but does not explicitly discuss exclusions or mention specific sibling alternatives for choosing between tools.

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