Detalhar work item

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the schema, such as the API constraint that 'fields' requires expand='none', the default expand value of 'all', and the trade-off that expand='none' is more economical for simple state/title checks.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance, parameter details, and examples. It is somewhat longer than the minimum viable description, but the parameter section and examples earn their place by making the tool easy to invoke correctly without consulting the schema separately.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the annotations cover the read-only, idempotent safety profile, the description is complete for both selection and invocation. It covers when to use the tool, what the ID represents, the optional project default, expansion levels, the fields constraint, and concrete trigger phrasings. Nothing essential for correct use is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description largely repeats schema content, though it adds minor context such as 'id as shown in the web interface' and the default project behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not substantially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving all details of a single Azure DevOps Server work item by ID, and enumerates the types of information returned (title, description, acceptance criteria, state, assignee, area, sprint, priority, tags, dates, author, custom fields, and links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly targeting one known work item, versus list_work_items for discovery.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the ID is already known, either from the user or from a prior list_work_items call. It also gives the alternative: call list_work_items first if the ID is unknown. Concrete example user requests are provided to help an agent recognize triggering scenarios.

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