op_get_work_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, especially the hoursLedger caveat explaining that it is reported separately and never summed with spentTime. This goes beyond what annotations alone reveal.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and scope are stated first, and the only additional sentence is a specifically valuable behavioral nuance about hoursLedger. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only fetch tool, this is nearly complete: it states what the response will include and highlights an important edge case. There is no output schema, but the description names the major available fields. It does not cover not-found behavior or error cases, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and read-only annotations.

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 fully documents the single required parameter 'id' as 'Work package id.', so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the id beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score for 100% schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one work package in full detail.' It also enumerates the included content (custom fields, priority, version, time aggregates), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling list and mutation tools such as op_list_work_packages and op_update_work_package.

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 clearly implies the right usage context: use this tool when you need a single work package with full detail, as opposed to a list of packages. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the 'one' vs. 'list' framing gives an agent sufficient context.

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