planview_get_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm it has no side effects, does not require authorization, or describe error behavior. It is adequate but minimal.

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?

One short sentence carrying precisely the essential information: the action, the object, and the selection key. No filler, no repetition of what the schema already says.

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 simple single-parameter getter tool, the description covers the core call: what it acts on, the identifying input, and the result (details). It does not document response structure or errors, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make the description adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already described as 'The work item ID'. The description merely repeats the 'by ID' concept without adding format, source, or behavioral expectations, so it adds no real value beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific work item'), and explicitly scopes by ID, making it clear this is a singular fetch operation. This distinguishes it from the plural sibling planview_get_work_items without requiring the schema.

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 implies the tool should be used when you have a specific ID and need its details, and the sibling names suggest alternatives like update or list. But it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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