Get work item

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

The annotations already communicate that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds no significant behavioral context beyond those annotations. It does not describe error/not-found behavior, field subset details, or access considerations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It effectively states the operation and result without repeating the title or the schema.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete. Because there is no output schema, slightly more specificity about which fields are returned would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 input schema already fully documents the single id parameter with its type, requirement, and description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add param semantics, and it does not go beyond the schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single work item'), and notes that it returns the item's fields. This distinguishes it from the plural listing tools, but it does not explicitly call out the sibling relationship with query_work_items.

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 singular wording and required 'id' imply this is for retrieving a known work item directly rather than searching. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of query_work_items or other list tools, and it provides no exclusion criteria.

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