wit_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does add a clear read-only signal ('Leitura'). However, it does not mention response shape, limits (max 200 ids), historical asOf semantics, or the project allowlist requirement, leaving much of the behavior implicit.

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 short sentences carry the core message with no filler, and the most important information (details by ID) is front-loaded. 'Leitura' is a worthwhile standalone addition given the absence of annotations.

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?

The schema supplies strong parameter documentation, and the description adds the read-only scope and the optionality of fields/relations. No output schema exists, but the only meaningful missing context for invocation is an explicit statement of return shape; the core calling contract is otherwise discoverable.

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 80%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds only the general idea that fields and relationships are optional, which is helpful but does not materially extend the schema's own descriptions of expand, fields, asOf, and project.

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 states a specific verb ('Detalha'), a concrete resource ('work items'), and the selection key ('por id'), while also noting optional fields and relations. This distinguishes wit_get from siblings like wit_query (search) and wit_tree (hierarchy), and 'Leitura' separates it from create/update tools.

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 the tool is for reading a known work item by ID and optionally expanding fields/relations, which gives an agent a hint of when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as wit_query for searching or wit_history for historical changes, nor does it state when not to use wit_get.

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