get_work_item

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: the include_description_html flag populates description_html with raw HTML required by update_work_items, plus a warning against feeding back blanked bodies. This enriches the safety profile beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose; the parameter note and sibling alternative each earn their place. The phrasing 'blanked (flag=False) body' is slightly cryptic but 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?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint annotation, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It covers the key workflow caveat and points to an alternative, leaving only the read_work_item overlap unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow meaning for include_description_html by identifying it as the source for update_work_items and warning about blanked bodies, exceeding what the schema already states.

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 action ('Get full details of one work item by ID') with a clear resource and identifier. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling read_work_item, whose name suggests a similar operation, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives concrete usage context: use include_description_html=True when preparing a round-trip update, and use list_work_item_test_steps when a Test Steps grid is needed. It does not, however, explain when to prefer this over read_work_item or list_work_items.

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