wrike_get_attachment_url

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get public URL' without mentioning response format, error handling, authentication, or whether the URL is temporary or permanent. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 a single focused sentence that immediately states the action and object. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, achieving high conciseness for a simple getter.

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?

Although simple, the tool lacks context about the exact return value (e.g., URL string format, expiration), prerequisites, or how it differs from sibling attachment tools. With no output schema, the description should provide more detail, but it only offers a minimal phrase.

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 only parameter attachmentId is fully described in the schema as 'Attachment ID (required)'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'public URL for an attachment'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wrike_download_attachment (binary content) and wrike_get_attachment (metadata), making the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as download or preview. It only states what the tool does without any context about selection criteria.

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