Show Work Item Relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation via REST API with $expand=relations and discloses the default organization context. However, it doesn't describe return format, error behavior, or whether any side effects exist, and doesn't explicitly confirm read-only semantics despite being a GET-style operation.

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, focused sentence that packs in purpose, technique, and a use case. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes practical detail about the API expansion and default org. No wasted words.

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 tool, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what it retrieves, how (REST with $expand), and a common use. With no output schema, it doesn't describe the returned structure in detail, which for a relations tool could be worthwhile, but the schema and simplicity keep this adequate.

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 coverage is 100% (workItemId fully documented). The description adds the default organization value (https://dev.azure.com/SKMHHIS) which is genuinely useful context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema covers the single parameter well; description adds mild supplementary value.

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 states a clear verb+resource: retrieves work item complete info including relations via REST API with $expand=relations. It also names a specific use case (checking if attachments exist). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, though the use case hint and tool name do provide some distinction from attach/update 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 states a concrete usage scenario (checking whether attachments exist), which is helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this vs alternatives like az_workitem_attach or az_devops_help, nor does it mention when to prefer sibling tools for related operations.

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