get_work_items

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

The description discloses important behavioral details: work-item text is truncated by default, the token cost justification, and the effect of include_text. Since no annotations are provided, the description effectively carries the burden of transparency.

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 structured with a summary, a pragmatic paragraph, and an Args list. However, the token cost explanation could be more concise. It earns its place but is slightly verbose for a tool description.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a key behavioral nuance. Since an output schema exists, return value documentation is handled separately. The description appears complete for an agent to use the 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?

The description includes a complete Args section that explains each parameter in plain language, adding meaning beyond the input schema titles. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well for all 5 parameters.

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 'Get time tracking work items for an issue,' specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_work_item and delete_work_item by focusing on retrieval, but does not explicitly contrast with other read tools.

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 the default truncation and when to use include_text, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as other work item operations. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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