retrieve_work_item_property

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Retrieve' implies read-only, and the Args section adds endpoint-scoping behavior. However, it does not explicitly state no-side-effects, error handling, or authorization requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, an Args list covering all parameters, and a Returns line. No redundant content; every sentence contributes.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the essential invocation details and return type, especially with an output schema available. It lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral disclaimers, but is largely complete. The gap in usage guidelines prevents a top score.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the Args section compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and optionality. It clarifies that project_id can be omitted for workspace scope and work_item_type_id can be omitted for project-level endpoint, adding genuine value beyond schema types.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve a work item property by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling retrieval tools by specifying the object type and single-item lookup.

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 does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_work_item_properties or retrieve_work_item_property_option. It only provides parameter-level scoping guidance (e.g., omit project_id for workspace scope), which is not tool-selection guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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