get_document_attachment_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces a read-only fetch. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying supported image extensions (PNG, JPEG, GIF, WebP) and their return format, and that SVG returns source markup as text while other extensions are rejected before any request. This goes beyond the annotation to clarify exact output behavior and limitations.

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 four sentences long, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary information about media types, rejection, and sibling alternatives, with no redundant words.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of schema descriptions and readOnlyHint annotation, the description fully explains the tool's return behavior (image vs SVG text), the pre-request rejection of unsupported extensions, and how to discover attachment ids. With no output schema, this behavioral explanation compensates adequately.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including attachment_id as 'bare filename token' and space_id as '_default'. The description adds little beyond this coverage, only linking to list_document_attachments for discovery, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'document attachment's content for viewing,' clearly stating the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly directing work item attachments to get_work_item_attachment_content and pointing to list_document_attachments for discovery.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use get_work_item_attachment_content for work item attachments' and 'Use list_document_attachments to discover attachment ids, file names, and sizes.' It also warns that unsupported extensions are rejected beforehand, implying not to attempt unsupported types.

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