download_entity_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: the content-path format ('/attachments/{id}/{filename}') and that images are returned as image content, which tells the agent what to expect from the response for a download tool with no output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the path convention and the return-content hint. No filler or repetition.

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 download tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context an agent needs: what entity types are supported, how the content path is formed, and that images come back as image content. It lacks only permission/auth prerequisites, which is a minor gap given the readOnlyHint.

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%, so both parameters (attachmentId, filename) are already documented, including that filename is auto-resolved if omitted. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Download) and resource (attachment) with scope ('of a project/portfolio/goal') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the issue-scoped sibling by noting 'not issue-scoped'. An agent can separate this from download_issue_attachment without opening either schema.

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 'not issue-scoped' note and the project/portfolio/goal scope give clear context for when this tool applies versus download_issue_attachment. However, it never names the alternative or states an explicit when-not condition, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than fully prescribed.

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