get_workitem

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds a scoping fact (the item must be in the current project) and explains the meaning of the isMine field, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown or out-of-project IDs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope stated first and no filler. The trailing isMine clause is short but largely restates information the output schema already carries.

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 one-parameter read with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description is minimally sufficient. It still leaves open what 'complete information' includes and how missing or cross-project IDs are handled, which an agent would need before relying on it.

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 0% and the description never mentions workitem_id — no format, no source (e.g. from list_workitems), no scope constraint. The name is self-explanatory and the schema supplies a regex pattern, but the description adds no meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve the complete information of a single work item inside the current project. The singular 'single work item' clearly contrasts with the sibling list_workitems and get_workitem_file, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it already has a workitem_id and needs full detail rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_workitems, and no prerequisites stated.

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