get_test_record_attachment_content

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: PNG/JPEG/GIF/WebP return as viewable images, SVG returns source markup, and other extensions are rejected before any request. This gives the agent clear expectations for output format and failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides distinct value: functionality, output format, exclusions, and cross-tool alternatives. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and only readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, return types, rejection behavior, domain alternatives, and discovery methods. For a read-only content-fetching tool, this is comprehensive and leaves no critical ambiguity.

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 adds practical parameter acquisition guidance by pointing to list_test_record_attachments to discover attachment ids, file names, and sizes. This goes slightly beyond the schema's static property descriptions and helps the agent populate the required fields.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch a test record attachment's content for viewing.' It immediately scopes the tool to test-record attachments and differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives for document and work item 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use get_document_attachment_content or get_work_item_attachment_content for the other domains' and 'Use list_test_record_attachments to discover attachment ids, file names, and sizes.' Also clarifies supported file types and rejection behavior, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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