get_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It indicates a read-like 'Get' operation and an id parameter, but does not disclose behavior such as whether a non-existent id returns an error or empty result, any access requirements, or other side-effect-free guarantees. This is minimal information.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core operation. There is no wasted wording, and the key qualifier 'single' is front-loaded to clarify the scope.

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?

This is a simple fetch-by-id tool with a minimal schema and an output schema. The description provides the core function but lacks contextual completeness: it does not clarify the relationship to list_types or indicate the retrieval behavior when not found. It is minimally viable but could be improved with one sentence about alternatives or failure semantics.

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. The description says 'by id' but never explicitly maps the id to the type_id parameter. It gives no additional context about the parameter beyond what the schema's property name already implies. For a single-parameter tool, this is a notable gap.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a single work package type'), and explicitly notes retrieval is by id. This distinguishes it from list_types (which would return multiple types) and other get_* siblings for different resources.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that list_types is the appropriate tool for retrieving all types, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does, not why or when to use it.

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