jira_attachment_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that files are written to disk, that YAML metadata is returned per image, and that a fresh temp directory is used when output_dir is omitted. While it doesn't discuss file overwrite behavior or authentication, it covers the primary side effects and return behavior adequately.

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 four short sentences, each with a clear purpose: action, return format, optional parameter behavior, and a command reference. The main content is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, file types, return type, and default directory behavior. It omits minor details like file naming or YAML metadata structure, but these are not essential for correct invocation. It is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for `key` and `output_dir`, including default behavior. The description reiterates the `output_dir` default but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema documents. Baseline 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+resource: 'Download image attachments on a JIRA issue to disk.' It lists exact formats (PNG, JPEG, GIF, SVG, WebP) and the destination (disk), making the tool's scope unambiguous and differentiating it from generic attachment tools. The 'Mirrors' reference further anchors the tool's identity.

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 implies usage by restricting to image attachments, which contrasts with the sibling `jira_attachment_download`, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus that alternative. No exclusions or explicit when-to-use guidance are provided. The 'Mirrors' command mapping is not a usage guideline.

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