list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully cover the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic 'list' action. Since the annotations already carry the burden, the description adds little value, but it does not contradict them either.

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: one line for purpose and a two-item argument list. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or filler text. Front-loads the main purpose clearly.

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?

The tool is simple (list attachments), has a return schema, and annotations cover safety. The description provides essential action and parameter hints. It could mention potential pagination or ordering, but those are likely handled by the output schema. For a simple read-only list tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds a valuable detail for 'issue_id': it can be an ID or URL. However, it does not explain what 'instance' means beyond 'optional', leaving ambiguity. With two parameters, only one gets meaningful enrichment, so partial compensation.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'attachments on a YouTrack issue'. It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools. However, the function is unique among siblings (only one other tool deals with attachments, but that one is get_attachment_url, which is different).

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 implies when to use (when you need to list attachments for an issue) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternatives. Since there are siblings like add_attachment or get_attachment_url, more explicit routing would help, but the basic use case is understandable from the description.

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