List bug attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: attachment content is not included, and the tool only returns metadata. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and scope are stated immediately, followed by the key limitation and direction to the sibling tool. Well-structured and 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 simple list tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, limitation, and alternative. It doesn't describe the exact metadata fields or pagination, but given the simplicity and openWorldHint, it is adequately complete for an agent to select and call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both bug_id and include_obsolete. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the examples of attachment types (patches, screenshots, logs, test cases) give some extra context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('attachments on a bug') and scopes it to 'metadata'. It distinguishes itself from get_attachment by explicitly excluding attachment content, making the tool's role unambiguous among siblings.

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 clear usage context: it lists attachments and tells the agent to use get_attachment when content is needed. While it doesn't enumerate all possible when-not cases (e.g., searching attachments), it gives a direct alternative for the primary limitation.

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