get_work_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: parallel fetching, individual failure reporting, max batch size, id types, deduplication. Lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only batch tool, the disclosed behaviors are sufficient.

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 concise: three short paragraphs with the most important information first. No redundant sentences, every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (batch with error handling, no output schema or annotations), the description covers the key behavioral aspects but omits the 'text_limit' parameter and does not describe the return format. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 explain parameters. It explains 'ids' thoroughly (internal vs display ids, dedup). However, the 'text_limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap for one of two parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get multiple work packages by ID in a single batch call.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_work_package (singular) and list_work_packages (no IDs).

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 context: fetches in parallel, per-item results, failed fetches don't stop batch, max 100 IDs. It explains id formats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single work packages, use get_work_package instead), though this is implied.

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