List work item attachments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the returned fields (name, size, comment, created date, attachment id, URL), which is beyond the schema's parameter-only coverage, but it does not mention pagination, sorting, or the behavior when the work item has no attachments. This is acceptable given the annotations, but the description could add a note on the absence of results.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the key output fields, front-loading the essential information. It contains no filler or redundancy, and every detail is useful for the agent. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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's low complexity (one parameter), the rich input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and the exact fields returned. The only missing element is a note about the lack of filtering or pagination, but the annotations cover safety, and the output schema handles return values. This is nearly complete for a 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'workItemId' with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional detail on the parameter, but that is not necessary given the schema's completeness. The description focuses on the output, which is already captured in the output schema, so it adds minimal value here.

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 lists file attachments of an Azure DevOps work item and enumerates the returned fields, which is specific and informative. Although it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the verb 'list' and the resource 'attachments' distinguish it from add, delete, and download operations, and the scope is unambiguous. The only minor gap is not naming the sibling for contrast, but the purpose is clear.

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 for retrieving attachment metadata from a work item, which is clear for a simple list operation. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like download_attachment, but the operation is straightforward and the schema's required workItemId defines the key context. Given the low complexity, a 3 is adequate; explicit exclusions would push it higher.

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