get_work_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. It is consistent with annotations but contributes no extra transparency.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it essentially restates the tool name without adding informative value. It is under-specified rather than efficiently scoped, resembling the 'Process' example in that it provides minimal insight beyond the title.

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?

This is a simple read-only fetch tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage. However, the description omits important context about the relationship between project_id and package_id, and what a work package represents. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.

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 description coverage is 100%—both package_id and project_id have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the schema already carries the full burden. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch a work package' clearly indicates a retrieval operation for a specific work package resource. It differentiates from list_work_packages and create/update/delete counterparts by using 'Fetch' and singular 'a work package', though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_* 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_work_packages or get_project. The required project_id and package_id imply the need for specific identifiers, but the description does not state this or provide any contextual cues for selection.

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