get_work_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: truncation of text by default, token cost concern, and the exact preview length (200-char). This is exactly the kind of value beyond annotations that helps an agent decide whether to pass include_text.

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 one-line summary, a context paragraph explaining the truncation behavior, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the important caveat about truncation is front-loaded before parameter details.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It fully covers the operation's purpose, key behavioral quirks, all parameters, and optionality. There is no missing information an agent would need to call this tool correctly.

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 the description carries full burden. It explains each parameter: issue_id can be ID or URL, instance is optional, since/until use YYYY-MM-DD, include_text toggles full notes vs preview. This is more meaningful than the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 starts with a specific verb and object: 'Get time tracking work items for an issue.' It clearly identifies the resource (work items) and the scope (issue). Though it doesn't name a sibling, it is specific enough to distinguish from other work-item tools like add_work_item or delete_work_item.

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 explains when to use include_text=True, and implies default behavior. It gives context about the token cost that justifies not including full text. It does not explicitly compare with alternative tools, but the usage context is clear for a retrieval operation.

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