get_work_item_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'get detailed information' and does not disclose what data is returned, whether a missing node/work_item_index causes an error, or whether querying has any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not affirmed.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear first sentence, followed by a compact argument list. The ctx line is arguably redundant since it only restates the MCP context, but it does not make the entry bloated.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to identify the target work item. However, it omits any description of the response shape or typical failure conditions and would be stronger with a short 'useful when you need...' pointer.

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 zero descriptions, and the description adds that node_path is a TOP node path and work_item_index is an index within that node. This adds meaning beyond variable names, though it stops short of saying whether the path is full, absolute, or whether the index is zero-based.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource: fetching detailed info about one work item, identified by node_path and work_item_index. It is distinct from sibling get_work_item_states, but it does not explicitly name or exclude that sibling.

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?

No guidance explains when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_work_item_states, get_failed_work_items, or get_pdg_graph. The intended use is only implied by the name and first sentence, with no explicit when/when-not reasoning.

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