get_work_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not elaborate on return format, error behavior, or whether the details include nested related resources. It is not contradictory, but adds minimal context beyond the verb itself.

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, clear sentence of nine words that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 operation with one parameter and straightforward schema, the description is adequate. However, since there are no annotations and no output schema, a bit more context about return shape or behavior on missing IDs would improve completeness. Still, the tool's simplicity keeps it close to 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 coverage is 100%: the work_package_id parameter is described as 'The ID of the work package'. The tool description adds only 'by ID', which restates the schema. Thus the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the parameter explanation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('work package') and identifies the scope ('specific', 'by ID'). This inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_packages (which retrieves multiple) and create/update_work_package.

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 package ID and need its details, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like list_work_packages for browsing. The context is clear from 'by ID', but no explicit guidance is provided.

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