List issue attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class (board_or_agent), which provides some extra behavioral context. However, it omits details like pagination, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 very short (two sentences) and to the point. However, it is too concise, missing crucial parameter explanation. It is not wasteful, but trades completeness for brevity.

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 the tool is simple (single parameter, output schema present), the description is barely adequate. It fails to explain the parameter or when to use the tool. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return value details, but usage and parameter gaps remain significant.

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% and the description does not explain the single required parameter `path.id`. The agent must infer that it is the issue ID, but no explicit guidance is given. A good description would state that the parameter is the issue ID whose attachments are to be listed.

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 'List issue attachments' clearly states the verb (List) and resource (issue attachments). The name and title reinforce this. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pc_get_issues_by_id or pc_get_issues_by_id_approvals, though the resource name makes it distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pc_get_issues_by_id or other attachment operations). No prerequisites (e.g., issue existence) or context provided.

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