get_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'all fields and relations', which hints at comprehensive data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation without annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a single work item by ID') and adds necessary qualifiers ('with all fields and relations'). There is no wasted wording, and it's structured for immediate comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally provide more context on the return format or behavioral traits to compensate, leaving room for improvement.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'expand'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'expand' parameter might control the 'all fields and relations' aspect, but this is already covered by the schema's enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Get'), resource ('a single work item'), and key qualifiers ('by ID', 'with all fields and relations'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_items_by_ids' (multiple items) and 'list_work_items' (list without full details), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 for retrieving detailed information about a specific work item when its ID is known, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_work_items_by_ids' for multiple items or 'list_work_items' for summaries. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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