list_work_item_attachments

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the returned id is a token used in body references, that Polarion does not validate references, that order is server-defined, and that results are paginated. This provides significant behavioral context.

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 with four sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, differentiating scope, explaining behavioral details, and providing a prerequisite. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 presence of an output schema and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, scope, pagination behavior, ID semantics, and prerequisite. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 covers 50% of parameters (project_id and work_item_id have descriptions). The description implies pagination with page_size and page_number but does not detail their semantics or constraints, though the schema provides those via defaults and min/max. The description adds moderate value over the schema's missing descriptions.

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 a work item's attachments as a paginated page, differentiating it from document attachments by explicitly directing users to list_document_attachments for documents. It also mentions using list_work_items to discover valid IDs, providing prerequisite context.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (work item attachments) and when not to (documents, directing to list_document_attachments). It also provides a prerequisite (use list_work_items to discover valid IDs), giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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