Batch Get Work Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'one request fan-out' behavioral trait, which is useful context beyond the annotations and clarifies that this is a batch operation. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 batch read tool with good annotations and fully described parameters, the description is largely complete. It clearly communicates the use case and basic behavior. However, it does not mention potential partial-failure behavior or default field returns, which could be relevant for a batch operation with up to 200 IDs, but this is a minor gap.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions work_item_ids by name without additional detail.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('multiple work items by ID'), and differentiates from siblings like workitem_get by emphasizing batch/fan-out behavior. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('when you already have a set of work_item_ids and need multiple detail reads'), which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., workitem_get for a single item), so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' bar.

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