get_attachment_url

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that attachment_name supports partial match, but does not mention behavior when multiple matches occur, whether URL expires, or authentication requirements.

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?

Description is concise with a single sentence for purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main action.

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?

Given existence of output schema (not shown), description does not need to detail return format. It covers parameters and behavior (partial match). Missing potential info on URL lifetime, but overall adequate for a simple URL retrieval tool.

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 0%, so description adds essential meaning: 'issue_id: Issue ID or URL', 'attachment_name: Attachment file name (partial match)', 'instance: YouTrack instance (optional)'. Provides clear purpose for each parameter, though could specify accepted formats for issue_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?

Description clearly states 'Get the download URL for a specific attachment on an issue.' Verb 'get' and specific resource 'download URL for attachment' differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_attachments' (lists attachments) and 'add_attachment' (adds attachment).

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?

Description implies use when needing a download URL for a specific attachment given issue_id and attachment_name, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. No comparison to sibling 'list_attachments' for getting attachment list before choosing a specific one.

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