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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool '获取详情' (gets details), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs (e.g., whether it requires login), rate limits, error handling, or what '详情' (details) includes in the response. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and supported formats. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete for basic usage. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key aspects like authentication requirements, response format, or error conditions. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps, especially for a tool that might involve external API calls or data retrieval.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'identifier' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by listing example formats (#12345, 12345, LFY-123), but this doesn't significantly enhance the semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights like validation rules or format nuances.

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 purpose: '通过 PingCode 工作项编号获取详情' (get details via PingCode work item identifier). It specifies the verb '获取详情' (get details) and resource '工作项' (work item), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_work_items' or 'get_release_items', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 by stating it supports various identifier formats (e.g., #12345, 12345, LFY-123), suggesting this tool is for retrieving specific items by ID. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_work_items' (which might handle broader queries) or 'list_projects' (for listing rather than fetching details). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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