get_work_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't describe what happens with invalid IDs, whether results are paginated, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the structure of returned data. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. 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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a batch retrieval tool that likely returns complex work item data, more context about response format and limitations would be needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'workItemIds' is required (though the schema already specifies this). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'project' interacts with IDs) or provide examples of valid values, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 'Get multiple work items by IDs' clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('work items'), and scope ('multiple...by IDs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_work_item' (singular) by specifying 'multiple', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'query_work_items' which might serve similar batch retrieval purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_work_item' (for single items) or 'query_work_items' (which might offer more flexible filtering), nor does it specify prerequisites like required permissions or project context. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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