getWorkItem

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it details the exact response structure ('full fields map', 'relations', '_links', 'rev'), notes that only populated fields appear, and explicitly warns against expecting only basic fields. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the mere fact it 'gets' a work item.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second details the response contents, and the third clarifies scope. It is front-loaded and compact with no fluff.

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 one-parameter GET with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough: it names the endpoint, explains the included fields, and clarifies the absence of certain fields. It also differentiates from siblings, making it complete for its 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 has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does by embedding 'id' in the API path, indicating it's the work item identifier. However, it doesn't elaborate on the type or constraints beyond the schema's integer and exclusiveMinimum, so it slightly over-delivers but leaves a little room for more.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the complete Azure DevOps work item JSON from GET /_apis/wit/workitems/{id}?$expand=all.' It clearly states the exact API endpoing and the scope of data returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like searchWorkItems by emphasizing it's not limited to a subset of fields.

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: use this when you need the full work item JSON for a known ID. The phrase 'This is NOT limited to id/title/state/assignedTo' suggests that if you only need those basic fields, other tools may suffice, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use. So it provides clear context without exclusions, fitting score 4.

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