get_requested_item_work_notes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads work notes, returns journal entries, supports filtering and pagination. However, it does not mention required permissions, whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), or any rate limits. Basic behavioral transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is fairly concise given the amount of information. It front-loads purpose, then provides details on fields, ordering, pagination, and filtering. Slightly long but no redundant sentences.

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 no annotations and a rich set of sibling tools, the description covers purpose, parameters, output fields, ordering, pagination, and filtering. It addresses the complexity of the tool (4 parameters, 1 required) and assumes output schema provides field definitions. Adequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains every parameter: sys_id identifies the record, limit/offset paginate, created_by filters by exact username. It also adds the parent filtering query pattern, which is not obvious from schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it reads work notes on a requested item (sc_req_item) and specifies the return fields (journal entries with sys_created_on, sys_created_by, value). It distinguishes from siblings like get_incident_work_notes by mentioning the table and parent filtering via query parameter.

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?

Description provides specific usage guidance: filter by parent with query='request=<sys_id>', notes are newest first, and pagination with limit/offset. It also explains the created_by filter. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear for the target resource.

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