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 merely restates the tool's purpose without explaining what 'detailed information' entails, default behavior, response format, or any side effects. It does not reveal that the operation is read-only or that expand defaults to true, which are important behavioral traits.

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, perfectly front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's basic purpose.

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 tool with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any contextual guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings, and does not clarify what 'detailed' means or how the expand parameter affects the response. With no output schema, the description could have provided more context about the return value, but it does not.

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 provides full coverage for both parameters (id and expand) with clear descriptions. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 gets detailed information about a specific work item, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from query_work_items or other sibling tools, but the focus on 'a specific work item' implies single-item retrieval as opposed to listing or searching, which is a reasonable distinction.

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 implies usage when you have a work item ID and need detailed information, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_work_items or get_commits_for_work_item. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is only implied.

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