get_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether board_name must be pre-resolved, pagination, or failure behavior for unknown task IDs.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of content an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, two required parameters, and one undocumented parameter, the description leaves too much unspecified. It should at least describe the returned attachment shape or the board/task scoping model.

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 50%: board_name is documented (pointing to list_boards) but task_id is bare. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required task_id.

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+resource: 'Get attachments on a task.' An agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings in a large toolset (e.g., get_comments, get_relations), though none are near-duplicates, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when-not to use it. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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