jira_download_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that text files (txt, md, json, log) are returned inline, CSV/XLS/XLSX/PDF are parsed into structured text, and images/binaries are returned as base64. This is significant added context, though it omits potential error responses or auth requirements.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and file-type handling follows logically. Every sentence adds meaningful information, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the main return format categories (inline, structured text, base64). It is incomplete regarding error handling and the exact JSON structure, but it covers the core behavior well for a download tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by connecting attachment MIME types to output formats, but it does not clarify parameter semantics beyond schema, such as the meaning of response_format options or how to locate the filename.

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 'Download an attachment from a Jira issue', specifying both the action (download) and the resource (attachment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_download_all_attachments by focusing on a single attachment, and from jira_read_task by targeting attachment content rather than issue fields.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_download_all_attachments. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining filename via jira_read_task) or exclusions, leaving usage entirely inferred from the tool name and context.

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