list_workitem_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states that the tool returns attachment information (file name, size, etc.) but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, authorization requirements, or whether the list is complete. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentence followed by a concise list of return fields. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no redundant words. Every part earns its place.

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 lack of output schema, the description provides a good summary of return data (file name, size, etc.). However, it omits potential details like pagination or result limits, which could be relevant for a list tool. Overall, it is fairly complete for a straightforward list operation.

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 coverage is 100%, both parameters already have descriptions. The description mentions 'specific work item' hinting at 'workItemId' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not degrade but adds minimal value.

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 'List attachments for a specific work item', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_workitem_attachment' and 'get_workitem_file' by focusing on listing multiple 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 implies using this tool to list attachments for a work item but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_workitem_file' for downloading a single file. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are provided.

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