get_workitem_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return includes a temporary download URL, hinting at the short-lived nature, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what authentication is needed, or any side effects. The description adds some context but is insufficient for full transparency.

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, consisting of two sentences with a clear domain prefix and a structured explanation of ID types and return details. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Minor improvement could be more explicit structure.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input types and output fields adequately. It explains the two ID formats and notes the temporary URL. However, it lacks details on authentication, expiration of the URL, and error scenarios, which would be helpful for completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the ID format explanation already present in the schema for the 'id' parameter, adding no significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. The other parameters are not elaborated upon.

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 tool retrieves file information for a specific work item, specifying the two ID formats (file ID and attachment ID) and the returned fields (name, size, suffix, temporary download URL). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_files' or 'get_file_blobs' by focusing on a single file within a work item.

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 explains the two ID formats, which guides usage for different file types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_files' for listing all files). No prerequisites or prohibitions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool's purpose.

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