op_get_work_package

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

The description outlines the return structure (full task fields plus optional comments/attachments), which adds useful context. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions, error handling, or side effects. The focus is on the data returned rather than behavioral guarantees.

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: a single-sentence purpose, followed by a concise Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. The existence of an output schema is noted, and the description additionally enumerates return fields, which is helpful. It lacks explicit error case details, but this is not critical for such a straightforward read operation.

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 description provides clear explanations for all three parameters in the Args section, including the effect of include_comments and include_attachments. Since the schema has no descriptions for its parameters, this fully compensates for the missing schema coverage.

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: to get detailed information about a task by its ID. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'by ID' distinguishes it from sibling tools like op_search_work_packages.

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 that the tool should be used when the agent already has a task ID, as indicated by 'by its ID.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for searching or other operations.

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