azdo_get_work_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return includes (e.g., fields, format). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with zero waste—'Get work item by ID' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with no redundant or verbose language.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication, error cases, return format, or how parameters like 'include_latest_n_comments' affect the output. For a tool in a complex domain (Azure DevOps), more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 all parameters (id, include_latest_n_comments, organization, project). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 'Get work item by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('work item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'azdo_get_work_items' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single item, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read operations like 'azdo_query_work_items'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing organization/project context) or compare it to siblings like 'azdo_get_work_items' (for multiple items) or 'azdo_query_work_items' (for filtered searches), leaving usage context implied at best.

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