jira_get_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: auto-resizing of images (default 1568px), re-encoding to JPEG/PNG, handling of different content types (image, text, binary), and the behavior of `saveTo`. It also notes that `quality` is ignored for images with alpha channels. This is comprehensive.

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 detailed but not overly verbose. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear sections for different behaviors. However, a slight reduction in length could improve conciseness without losing information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains return types: inline images as image content blocks, text as text, and for `saveTo` the original file is written to disk. It covers edge cases (alpha channel, binary types, size limits). For a tool with four parameters and multiple behaviors, this is exceptionally 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: it explains what `saveTo` does (saves original file to disk), the purpose of `maxDimension` (downscale large images), and the nuance about `quality` being ignored for alpha images. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 action ('Fetch a Jira attachment by ID') and the output ('return its contents inline'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `jira_get`, which is used to discover attachment IDs, by specifying that this tool retrieves the content. The mention of different content types (images, text, binaries) adds specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: `saveTo` for binary or large files, `maxDimension` for detail-heavy images. It also instructs to use `jira_get` first to find attachment IDs, guiding the agent on the correct workflow.

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