get_work_item_attachment_content

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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: PNG/JPEG/GIF/WebP return as viewable images, SVG returns source markup as text, and other extensions are rejected. This gives the agent actionable expectations about return format and validation, which annotations do not cover.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences provide essential format and alternate-tool guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains return behaviors (image vs. text) and rejection rules. It fully covers the tool's functionality, including how to discover required IDs via a sibling tool, making it complete for agent use.

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?

While schema descriptions already cover all three parameters, the description adds valuable context: attachment_id is described as a 'bare filename token' from list_work_item_attachments. This clarifies the parameter's origin and format beyond the schema's basic description, enhancing semantic understanding.

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 states a specific action: 'Fetch a work item attachment's content for viewing.' It clearly identifies the resource (work item attachment) and distinguishes it from document attachments via explicit reference to get_document_attachment_content. This separates it from sibling 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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use get_document_attachment_content for document attachments' and 'Use list_work_item_attachments to discover attachment ids, file names, and sizes.' Also specifies the rejection of non-supported extensions before any request, giving clear usage constraints.

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