Get work item

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what the response will include: metadata, rich-text content, relations, and optionally comments. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or default expansions, but for a read-only getter this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core action ('Get a single work item') and then organizes the response details into clear categories. There is no filler or redundant restatement of 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so at a useful level of detail. It covers metadata, rich-text fields, relations, and comments, though it could have briefly noted default behaviors or the expand/fields relationship. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool provides.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters clearly. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning rich-text content and optional comments, which maps loosely to format and includeComments. This matches the baseline of 3 for well-covered schemas.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single work item'), and enumerates the returned content: metadata, rich-text content, relations, and optional comments. This clearly distinguishes it from plural sibling tools like get_work_items and from comment-specific tools like get_work_item_comments.

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 phrase 'Get a single work item' gives clear context for when to use this tool versus list-style or comment-only tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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