retrieve_intake_work_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does disclose a key nuance (use the issue field, not the intake work item ID), but it fails to state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or what happens on failure. More seriously, it lists workspace_slug as an argument while the schema does not include it, misleading the agent about the tool's actual interface.

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 and well-structured with an Args and Returns format. The main purpose is front-loaded. However, the inclusion of workspace_slug is both erroneous and an unnecessary line, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple retrieval: it names the return type (IntakeWorkItem) and the critical ID nuance. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool versus related work item retrieval tools and does not address the workspace_slug discrepancy, leaving a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 description adds meaning beyond the bare schema for project_id, work_item_id, and params (e.g., 'use the issue field...', 'expand, fields'). However, it also introduces workspace_slug, which is not a valid parameter in the schema, thereby providing misleading information. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but the error undermines its usefulness.

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 an intake work item by work item ID.' The 'intake' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like retrieve_work_item and retrieve_work_item_by_identifier. The return type is explicitly mentioned.

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 use for intake work items and provides guidance on which ID field to supply (the issue field from IntakeWorkItem response). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like retrieve_work_item or list_intake_work_items, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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