List file links

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds considerable detail: the list is fetched in full (has_more always false), 404/403 results return an empty list with a note, and the permission field semantics are explained ('View allowed' vs other values). It also discloses that URLs require the user's own OpenProject login and that the server cannot fetch bytes. No contradictions with annotations.

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 lengthy but well-structured, moving from a clear definition to return details, pitfalls, and related tools. Every sentence contributes important nuance, especially around edge-case behaviors. It could be trimmed slightly, but the density warrants a 4 rather than 3.

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 tool's complexity and the rich output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the return payload fields, error patterns, permission implications, and relationships to sibling tools. It addresses all foreseeable agent questions without redundancy.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that work_package_id is never an attachment id or project id and that it comes from specific list/search tools. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 'List the external-storage files (Nextcloud, OneDrive/SharePoint) linked to a work package.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also explicitly distinguishes file links from attachments, setting it apart from the sibling list_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?

It says 'Use this to answer "which documents belong to this ticket"' and instructs pairing with list_attachments because the two lists are disjoint. It further states download_attachment does not work on these links and points to get_work_package as the provenance. This gives explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternative guidance.

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