list_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the operation is read-only ('list'), but does not mention authorization requirements, side effects, rate limits, or whether it returns metadata or URLs. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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: two sentences plus an argument list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word is functional. No extraneous content.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on return values (despite an output schema), any prerequisites, or behavioral nuances. Adequate but not thorough.

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 adds value by explaining issue_id as 'Issue ID or URL' and instance as 'optional'. This provides necessary context beyond the raw schema, but the explanations are minimal and do not cover formats or constraints.

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 action: 'List all attachments on a YouTrack issue.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('attachments'), and the tool's purpose is distinct from siblings like add_attachment or get_attachment_url.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that get_attachment_url should be used to retrieve a specific attachment's URL, nor does it advise against using this tool for adding attachments.

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