get_work_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by explaining the effect of include_description_html and warning about feeding back a blanked body. This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful operational guidance. There is no contradiction.

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 concise, three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: the first states the main action, the second explains the boolean parameter, and the third provides a critical warning. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the key parameter behavior and a critical caution. For a retrieval tool, this is largely complete. Minor gaps: no mention of error conditions or authentication, but given annotations and schema, it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for include_description_html (its purpose and a caution). For project_id and work_item_id, the schema already describes them adequately. The extra guidance for the boolean parameter elevates the score above baseline.

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 tool retrieves full details of one work item by ID. The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource 'work item' is unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings that perform create, update, or list operations, though it shares a similar purpose with read_work_item.

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 context for the include_description_html parameter, indicating its necessity for update_work_items and cautioning against using a blanked body. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_work_item, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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