get_work_item_by_number

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The term 'look up' implies a read-only operation, and the example clarifies the number format. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, whether an error occurs for invalid numbers, or how project_id affects behavior—leaving notable gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and includes a helpful example. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core lookup purpose, but lacks an output schema and annotations. It does not explain the optional project_id parameter, return value format, or error behavior, making it only partially complete for a tool with two parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The example '391 for TRAVELXS-391' effectively explains sequence_id as the numeric part, but project_id's purpose is only hinted at via the prefix in the example, not explicitly stated. This provides partial but incomplete parameter semantics.

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's function: 'Look up a work item by its human number' with a concrete example that disambiguates from ID-based lookups. It specifies both the verb ('look up') and the resource ('work item'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_work_item which likely use internal IDs.

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 usage when the user knows the human-readable number (e.g. 391 for TRAVELXS-391), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_work_item or search_work_items. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the usage is only implied.

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