get_attachment_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as URL expiry, authentication requirements, or whether partial match is case-sensitive. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them, leaving it at a baseline 3.

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 compact and front-loaded. The one-line purpose is immediately followed by a clear Args section. No filler or redundant text. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics and tool purpose. It does not mention return value details, but the output schema exists to handle that. A brief note about URL validity or error cases would improve completeness, but overall the agent has enough to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly explains each parameter: issue_id can be ID or URL, attachment_name is a partial match, and instance is optional. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema field names, though it could be more detailed (e.g., example values).

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the download URL for a specific attachment on an issue.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_attachments (which lists attachments) and other issue-related tools. The purpose is explicit and unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does and lists parameter meanings, which implicitly conveys when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_attachments or explain when this tool should be preferred over other attachment-related tools. No exclusions or scenario guidance provided, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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