jira_attachment_download

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

The description discloses key behaviors: files are written to disk, return metadata, and temp directory usage. However, it omits details on permissions, overwrite behavior, and handling of missing attachments. Without annotations, some behavioral aspects are left implicit.

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 concise, with three sentences each serving a distinct purpose: action, output details, and usage guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and parameter behavior. It is mostly complete, though it could mention edge cases like empty results or filter mismatches.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by detailing the return format (YAML metadata fields) and the output_dir behavior, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool's action ('download attachments'), target ('on a JIRA issue'), and output ('YAML metadata'). It is distinct from sibling tools like upload or delete, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 explains the behavior of the output_dir parameter and the temp directory fallback, guiding the assistant to use the filesystem tool to read downloaded files. However, it does not explicitly compare to other attachment tools or state when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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