get_work_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying 'no write' and detailing the return (full descriptions, links, custom fields, lockVersion). No contradictions; adds behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, zero waste. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 GET tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers usage context and return type. Could mention error handling (e.g., unknown ID) or response format more explicitly, but generally complete enough.

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?

Parameter 'id' is self-explanatory from its name and type, but schema coverage is 0% and description only mentions 'by numeric ID' without further detail. The parameter is simple, so minimal extra semantics needed; adequate but not extensive.

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?

Description clearly states it gets the complete HAL+JSON representation of one work package by numeric ID, specifying the verb (get) and resource (work package). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_work_packages (list) and create/update (write operations).

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use after search when full descriptions, links, custom fields, or lockVersion are required' and clarifies 'this performs no write,' providing clear guidance on when and when not to use this tool compared to alternatives.

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