get_work_item

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

The annotation already indicates readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of the include_description_html parameter, including the round-trip shape for update_work_item and the blanking behavior. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, but the description augments the annotation.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the main purpose and the key parameter behavior. There is no mention of error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple read tool with a single important parameter, it is fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning for the include_description_html parameter by explaining its purpose for round-trip editing. For project_id and work_item_id, the schema descriptions are sufficient, so the description provides extra value for one parameter.

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 'Get full details of a single Polarion work item,' which is specific and identifies the resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'read_work_item', which likely has a similar purpose.

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 provides detailed usage guidance for the include_description_html parameter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'read_work_item' or 'list_work_items'. The use case is implied but not differentiated.

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