get_workitem_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the temporary download URL but does not specify expiration, rate limits, or whether the operation is purely read-only. The description is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details on IDs, then return info. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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 moderate complexity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains the operation, ID formats, and return fields. Minor gaps: no mention of prerequisites or URL expiration, but overall sufficient for agent use.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the 'id' parameter formats (file ID vs attachment ID) in English, which the schema describes in Chinese only. This goes beyond the schema, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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 retrieves file information for a specific work item, distinguishes between two types of IDs (file for embedded images, attachment for numeric IDs), and lists returned fields. This specificity differentiates it from siblings like list_files (lists all) or get_file_blobs (gets content).

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 usage when needing details of a file for a work item, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for downloading content) or compare to alternatives like get_file_blobs. Given many siblings, some guidance would help.

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