grove_work_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the data locality guarantee that nothing is sent to GitHub or other services, plus the fact that the payload includes plan and notes despite no output schema. It does not cover behavior on a missing or unknown id, which keeps it below 5.

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 short sentences: the core operation first, then timing guidance, then the locality caveat. No wording is redundant and nothing important is buried at the end.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose, timing, return contents in outline, and side-effect posture. Only the behavior for an invalid or absent id is unaddressed, a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains "id" fully. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail (e.g., where ids come from) beyond typing it as a work item id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one work item by id") and goes further by naming what comes back ("with its plan and notes"). This clearly separates it from grove_work_list, grove_work_create, and grove_work_update, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative.

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?

"Use before continuing a piece of work" gives an explicit triggering condition, which is the main thing an agent needs for a fetch-by-id tool. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming grove_work_list as the alternative for discovery, leaving a small gap.

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