get_work_item_attachment_download_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the URL is presigned for ~1 hour and requires no Plane authentication, which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear title, a short paragraph, and labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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 and the presence of annotations and an output schema (implied by the return description), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, behavior, parameters, and return format completely. No gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by naming each parameter and specifying they are UUIDs. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 it gets a presigned download URL for a work item attachment, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_work_item_attachment, upload, delete, and list by focusing on URL generation.

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 explicitly instructs the user to 'Use list_work_item_attachments first to get attachment IDs and names,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes that the URL is time-limited and requires no authentication, aiding correct invocation.

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