list_work_package_file_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates the operation is a read-style 'List' action, and it warns about the identifier type. However, it does not mention return structure, pagination, access requirements, or any other behavioral details beyond the basic operation.

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 minimally sized: one clear sentence describing the action and one supplementaryentence explaining the identifier format. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes no fluffer or repeated computational details.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema, and the description covers what the tool does and how to pass the ID. However, it does not describe what the result list contains (e.g., URLs, file namements) or any potential limits, which is a noteworfor only a basic list 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 only provides a type union of integer or string, so the description adds significant value by detailing that work_package_id accepts an internal id like 952 or a display_id like 'PROJ-51', and that the UI display number should not be used. This directly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'List Nextcloud file links attached to a work package'. It includes a specific resource and action, and the 'Community Edition' qualifier helps scope it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_package_attachments and list_work_package_watchers.

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 gives toolurpose and a note about the edition, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus other list tools such as list_work_package_attachments. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references, so the usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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