get_work_item

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Implies a read-only fetch operation but does not disclose permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe. Adequate for a simple read but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no filler. Every word earns its place. Efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema, so the description should specify return structure. It mentions 'full cross-source timeline' and lists components, but lacks details on response format (e.g., chronological order, pagination). Sufficient to understand purpose but not fully complete for an agent.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters (id, key, limit). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; e.g., it doesn't clarify the relationship between id and key or the formatting of key. Baseline score appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it fetches a work item with a full cross-source timeline, listing specific components (ticket, commits, PRs, reviews, discussions) and providing an example ("show me everything about PROJ-123"). Differentiates from siblings like list_work_items and get_activity.

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?

Explicitly recommends the tool for comprehensive lookups with 'The best tool for "show me everything about PROJ-123"'. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the usage scenario is strongly implied.

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