list_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions default session behavior but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, whether it returns all attachments at once or paginated, or any authentication/rate limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, the first stating the purpose and the second providing key parameter details. No wasted words; it is well 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on return format, error handling, and how to handle cases where no attachments exist. Agent may need additional context to use it effectively.

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%, but description only adds context for object_type values and session_id default. It does not explain object_id, project_id, or the relationship between parameters, leaving ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 'List all attachments for an item' with specific verb and resource. It enumerates the allowed object types (user_story, task, issue, epic, wiki_page), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_attachment and other list_* tools.

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 vs. alternatives like get_comments or other tools. It does not mention prerequisites such as needing the project_id or object_id, nor does it warn about potential performance or missing data.

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