retrieve_work_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the return type and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any error behavior (e.g., not found), auth requirements, or side effects. The verb 'retrieve' implies a read, but this is not explicit.

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 structured with an Args/Returns layout, which is easy to scan and each line is concise. It focuses on parameters and return type, without unnecessary filler. Minor redundancy in 'Retrieve a work item by ID' followed by args could be tightened but is not wasteful.

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 output schema covers return values, but the description lacks key contextual information: when to use this tool vs siblings, how error cases are handled, and the purpose of order_by for a single item. Given the large sibling set and no annotations, this is incomplete for guiding proper selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all 7 parameters, but some are vague (e.g., 'order_by' for a single-item retrieve, and external_id/external_source are only described as filtering). The descriptions add basic meaning but not enough to fully understand all parameter semantics.

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 a work item by ID') and lists exact parameter roles. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'retrieve_work_item_by_identifier', even though the parameter names imply an internal UUID-based retrieval.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the tool retrieves a single work item given project_id and work_item_id. No explicit guidance is given about when to use this instead of list/search alternatives or retrieve_work_item_by_identifier. The parameter list provides some context but no when/when-not statements.

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