read_work_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it collapses Polarion spans/anchors during Markdown rendering, and warns against using the output with update_work_item. This goes beyond the annotation and aids correct usage.

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 extremely concise (three lines), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words; the structure efficiently conveys purpose, distinction, and usage warnings.

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 output schema exists (context signal), the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral notes, and distinguishes from siblings. For a simple read tool with 2 parameters, it is fully 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for project_id and work_item_id. The description adds no further parameter-specific information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads a Polarion work item with body rendered as Markdown, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_work_item as a 'synthesis variant'. The verb 'read' and resource 'work item' are specific and accurate.

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 explicit guidance: it's read-only, warns not to feed the output back to update_work_item, and suggests using the HTML pair for round-trip operations. This helps the agent choose the correct tool for reading vs. updating.

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