get_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds value by specifying that the response includes sub-tasks and comments, not just the work item itself. It doesn't mention permissions, error handling, or output format, but for a simple retrieval tool this is minimally sufficient.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then appends the specific included elements. Every word earns its place.

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 with two well-named integer parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key inclusions (sub-tasks and comments). It doesn't address ordering, pagination, or error behavior, but these are not essential for a basic get operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not explicitly define project_id and work_item_id, but the parameter names are self-explanatory within the context of 'get one work item'. This is adequate but not enriched.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'one work item' and specifies the included sub-items (checklist and comments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_items, which likely returns multiple items, and other work item tools.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a single work item with its checklist and comments. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, which would push it to a 5.

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