get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'metadata' usefully signals that the tool returns attachment metadata rather than the binary attachment content, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior, or the shape of the returned metadata.

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 a single, concise phrase with no filler. It earns its place by stating the core action and resource, though it lacks additional context that could make it more helpful.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient: the agent knows what to call, what parameter to provide, and that the result is metadata. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description does not clarify what fields of metadata are returned or any special cases like missing or invalid attachment IDs.

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%, and the schema already defines 'id' as 'The ID of the attachment.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that, but the schema fully covers the single parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('attachment metadata'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like add_attachment and get_issue. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potential related tools or define what 'metadata' includes relative to the attachment content.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or mention any alternative such as add_attachment for uploading or other issue-related retrieval tools.

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