Get Work Item By Identifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'Fetch' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what happens for malformed identifiers or missing work items. It adds no behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and a concrete example. Every element earns its place with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with a rich schema and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be more complete by naming get_work_item as the sibling for internal-ID lookups, but an agent can still invoke this tool correctly.

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 already documents the parameter format thoroughly with examples and an explicit note about the project identifier. The description reinforces the 'human identifier' concept but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already covers.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a work item') and adds the key qualifier 'by its human identifier', which makes the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling get_work_item, so the distinction remains only implied.

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 phrase 'by its human identifier' implies the intended use case, and the example PROJ-123 gives context. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_work_item, search_work_items, or list_work_items.

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