get_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful context that content is not downloaded and that only metadata is returned, which helps the agent understand the tool's non-destructive behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and returned fields, ending with a pointer to the sibling tool. Every word adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations. The description covers the key metadata-vs-content distinction and names the sibling, making it complete for correct invocation without excessive detail.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining issue_key. It implies issue_key identifies the issue ('an issue's attachment metadata'), but does not specify format or provide examples. This is minimally viable but leaves ambiguity about the expected key format.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('issue's attachment metadata'), and explicitly lists fields returned (id, filename, mime_type, size, author, created). It also differentiates itself from download_attachment by noting it does not download content, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly names download_attachment as the alternative for fetching file bytes, giving a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-that. The condition is stated: metadata vs content, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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