ado_workitems_get

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

While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, the description adds behavioral detail about the project validation error and the inclusion of relations, which are not captured in structured data. It does not contradict annotations and provides helpful context for a read operation.

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?

Two compact sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed efficiently. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 read-only single-item tool, the description covers what the agent needs: what is retrieved, how to obtain the ID, the project validation edge case, and the relationship to sibling tools. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently hints at the return contents.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It does repeat the project error behavior already present in the schema, but adds no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thorough parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'work item by its ID', and the specific contents ('all fields, description, tags, and relations'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search/list tools by focusing on a single item retrieval, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use ado_workitems_query or ado_workitems_list_recent to find IDs first, establishing a clear prerequisite and routing. It also discloses the error behavior when a project is supplied and mismatched, which informs correct usage.

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