retrieve_work_item_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as not-found behavior, response format, or relationship between identifiers. It does not contradict annotations, but also fails to disclose any traits not captured by them.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words, making it easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but it does state the core action and object.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what is returned or how the three IDs relate. The annotations provide safety but not completeness. An agent can select the tool but may not know how to correctly populate parameters or interpret results.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions for link_id, project_id, or work_item_id (0% schema coverage). The description only says 'by ID' and does not explain the meaning or purpose of the three required parameters, leaving the agent to infer their roles from the tool name and sibling context.

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 a specific action ('Retrieve') on a resource ('a single link') with an identifier ('by ID'), distinguishing it from list operations like list_work_item_links. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling retrieve tools such as retrieve_work_item_comment, nor does it mention 'work item' in the description, relying on the tool name for context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_work_item_links or retrieve_work_item. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context indicating the relationship between project_id, work_item_id, and link_id.

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