jira_attachment_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that files are written to disk, the YAML metadata return format, and the temp-directory fallback when output_dir is omitted. It does not mention auth requirements or error behavior, but for a download tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then efficiently covers return metadata and the key temp-dir behavior, earning its place with each sentence.

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?

Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining the return value (YAML metadata fields) and the on-disk destination behavior. Combined with full schema coverage for parameters, the description supplies enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% (all three parameters are documented). The description only repeats the output_dir behavior already present in the schema and adds no new parameter-level details, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download attachments on a JIRA issue to disk.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_attachment_upload, jira_attachment_delete, and confluence_attachment_download, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by explaining the optional output_dir behavior and the resulting temp directory path for reading files. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full 5.

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