get_workitem_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that it returns file name, size, suffix, and a temporary download URL, and explains the two supported ID formats. This is sufficient for a read-only retrieval operation, though it does not detail permission requirements or URL expiration behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and awkward structure while packing in ID-format distinctions and return-value details.

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?

For a simple read-only fetch tool with 3 required params and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies required inputs and explains what will be returned, including the temporary URL. It could go a bit further by clarifying error scenarios or URL expiry, but it is well-suited to support tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the structured schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds some context around the 'id' parameter (file IDs vs attachment IDs), but this largely duplicates the schema description. It does not meaningfully supplement the meaning of organizationId or workitemId beyond the schema.

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 'Get file information for a specific work item', giving a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes between file IDs and attachment IDs, and lists what is returned, making it easy to tell apart from related tools like list_workitem_attachments.

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 establishes clear usage context: use it to retrieve a single file/attachment for a work item when you have a specific ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the specificity of 'specific work item' and the ID-format explanation provide strong practical guidance.

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