Download a work item attachment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that existing local files are never overwritten, a ' (n)' suffix is added, and the absolute path of the saved file is returned. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know, and it is consistent with the openWorldHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 and under 30 words, yet conveys purpose, selection method, file-collision behavior, and return value. Every sentence earns its place and the main action is front-loaded.

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 six parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers the download action, the local destination, conflict behavior, and the return value. It does not explicitly state at the tool level that one of attachmentId or name is effectively required, though the schema descriptions imply it. Minor omission, but overall sufficient for correct 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 schema already documents every parameter. The description's mention of 'attachment id or unique file name' only restates what the schema's attachmentId and name fields already convey. It adds no extra semantic detail 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Download a work item attachment'), the destination ('to a local directory'), and the two selection keys ('by attachment id or unique file name'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/add/delete attachment tools.

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 gives practical selection guidance: use attachmentId or a unique file name. The schema adds the important caveat that name-based lookup only works when the name is unique, otherwise attachmentId should be used. It does not explicitly say 'use list_attachments first' or state when not to use this tool, but the intended usage is clear.

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