Eén item volledig opvragen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full weight. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('retrieves') and adds useful context about return content, including aggregated values like estimation, tracked time, and budget. However, it does not mention error handling, missing item behavior, or any requirements such as authentication or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It places the verb and object at the start, then adds relevant detail about aggregated values, all in a compact phrase.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what will be returned (all fields and aggregates). It doesn't cover error scenarios or prerequisites, but the low complexity and explicit retrieval semantics make it fairly complete for an agent to invoke.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'itemId' with its description ('ID van het item'), so no additional details are required. The description doesn't add extra parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but that's sufficient given the high schema coverage.

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 ('retrieves'), a clear resource ('one work item'), and the full scope ('all fields including estimated, tracked time, budget'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools like search_items, which returns multiple items, and get_item_activity, which focuses on activity data.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (e.g., search_items, get_item_activity). It merely describes what the tool does; the agent must infer the use case from the name and behavior without any direct comparison or exclusions.

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