retrieve_work_item_property_option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, and the 'Omit for workspace scope' note adds behavioral nuance. It also states the return type. Still, it does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or explicitly confirm non-mutation, which are useful for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every line contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is a simple retrieval operation, and the description covers its purpose, all parameters, and the return object. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return fields. However, it omits any mention of error cases (e.g., not found, invalid IDs) or prerequisites, keeping it from being fully 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?

The input schema only provides generic string types with 0% schema coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining property_id as the UUID of the work item property, option_id as the UUID of the option, and project_id with the workspace-scope distinction. This is exactly the semantic richness needed.

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 opens with 'Retrieve a single option from a work item property,' using a specific verb and clear resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_work_item_property_options, retrieve_work_item_property, and get_work_item_property_value by indicating it fetches exactly one property option, not a list or a property value.

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 context from 'single option' versus the sibling list tool, and the 'Omit for workspace scope' note explains a key variant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implied.

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