retrieve_work_item_by_identifier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the lookup uses a human-readable identifier rather than an internal ID, which is helpful. However, it does not describe behavior such as not-found handling, response format, or any side effects beyond the annotation context.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and input format with a concrete example. There is no redundant or filler content, and the message is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic retrieve call, but with seven parameters and no output schema, the optional parameters remain undocumented and unclear. It does not state return values or error behavior, so agents may not know about response-fetching options like fields or expand. This is a moderate completeness gap.

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 low (29%), and the description compensates by explaining the two required parameters with concrete examples and clarifying the 'DEV-42' composite format. Yet the five optional parameters (expand, fields, order_by, external_id, external_source) receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving agents without guidance on their 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 that the tool retrieves a work item by its human-readable identifier (e.g., 'DEV-42'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like retrieve_work_item (likely by internal ID) and search_work_items. The verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'work item' make the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives context by requiring a project identifier and issue sequence number, implying use when a human-readable ID is known. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like retrieve_work_item or search_work_items, nor does it state when not to use it. Guidance is clear for the basic case but lacks exclusions.

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