Get work packet

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds detail on what the brief includes and the optional eta based on project config, providing value beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value. It includes a specific reference (FBMCPF-269) which is slightly opaque but does not waste space.

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 output schema, the description explains the return content comprehensively (scope, details, files, etc.). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the parameter names 'ticket' and 'project' are self-explanatory. The description mentions 'one ticket' and 'project config', providing some context but no explicit parameter documentation.

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 it assembles a focused brief for one ticket, listing specific components: scope, linked-issue details, code location, project prompt, scratchpad mentions, work log, files to read, and definition of done. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task or list_tasks.

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 tells when to use it ('before you work it') and provides a usage instruction ('Read the files it points to rather than dumping them'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is clearly scoped.

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