get_work_item_property_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by explaining the return behavior (single item vs. list for multi-value properties) and clarifying it applies to custom properties. However, it does not address error cases, permissions, or confirm the operation is read-only beyond the implied 'get' semantics.

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 tightly structured docstring: a purpose sentence, a cross-reference, an Args list, and a Returns list. Every line serves a purpose with no filler, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 read tool with three UUID parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential prerequisite (property_id lookup) and the dual return shape. It could be more complete by addressing edge cases or explicitly contrasting with retrieving the entire work item, but overall it is sufficient for its complexity.

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 input schema provides only string type names with 0% description coverage. The description's Args section compensates by labeling each parameter as a UUID and its role (project, work item, property), and it hints that property_id comes from list_work_item_properties. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('value(s) of a custom property on a work item'), making its purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_work_item_properties (which lists property definitions) and set_work_item_property_value (which writes values). The inclusion of return shape variance reinforces the tool's scope.

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 explicitly instructs to use list_work_item_properties to find the property_id, establishing a clear prerequisite and usage context. However, it does not contrast with alternative value-manipulation tools (e.g., set_work_item_property_value) or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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