Get work package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read', which implies a non-mutating operation, but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid id), auth requirements, or response characteristics. Given the lack of annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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 the primary purpose front-loaded and the usage hint in a separate sentence. No filler or redundant phrasing; every part contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (full work package with specified fields) and how to get the id. It omits error handling details, but these are less critical for a straightforward fetch. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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% for the id parameter (with an example), and the description adds operational context by directing the agent to get the id from search_work_packages. This goes beyond the schema's static definition by explaining how to obtain a valid value, which is helpful for correct invocation.

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 tool reads one work package in full, listing specific fields (description, priority, author, progress). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_work_packages (which searches) and get_work_package_comments (which fetches comments only) by focusing on full details of a single 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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to obtain the id from search_work_packages first, establishing a clear usage workflow. This also implies when to use this tool (after searching) and implicitly differentiates it from alternatives like search (for lists) or comments (for a subset of data).

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