get_work_item_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but says nothing about whether the node must be cooked, whether work items are accessible before/after a cook, or what happens with an out-of-range index.

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 body is short and front-loaded, but the Args block is docstring boilerplate that includes 'ctx: MCP context,' which is not a schema parameter, adding noise without value. The one useful sentence is buried above redundant parameter restatements.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe what 'detailed information' actually contains and how to obtain a valid work_item_index. In a sibling set containing get_work_item_states and get_failed_work_items, that routing information is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'node_path: TOP node path' usefully scopes the parameter to TOP/PDG networks, but 'work_item_index: Work item index within the node' merely restates the name without explaining valid ranges or how indices are obtained.

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 and resource: retrieve detailed information about a specific work item. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_work_item_states or get_failed_work_items by the 'detailed information about a specific work item' phrasing, though the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_work_item_states, get_failed_work_items, or get_top_logs, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing the work item index from a prior listing call. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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