get_issue_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that the default path returns MCP image or embedded-resource content, and warns that 'base64' puts the whole encoding in the caller's context. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior when an attachment is missing or oversized, leaving real gaps.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and return modes, then the prerequisite. No sentence is padding; each carries actionable information.

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 5 parameters at full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the variable return shapes, the prerequisite, and the format trade-off. Remaining omissions are error/permission behavior, which limit it to a 4.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including attachmentId's provenance and the format enum semantics. The description largely restates the schema's own explanation of the format options and the attachmentId source, adding little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Downloads one attachment of an issue') and immediately scopes it to a single attachment, distinguishing it from the general-purpose get_issue sibling. An agent can tell what it does and what object it acts on without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain ('Call get_issue first to obtain the attachmentId from the issue's `attachments` array') and explains when to choose each format value. It lacks any explicit exclusion or statement of when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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