list_work_item_properties

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: scope resolution fallback logic, efficiency advice, result structure (including fields like id, display_name, property_type, options), and a PQL workflow. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with sections for scope resolution, result fields, and PQL workflow. It is verbose but each section adds value. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly long but effective.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple parameter combinations, return structure, and PQL integration), the description covers scope rules, result fields, and a workflow example. Output schema exists, so return values are not required, but description still lists fields. Highly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of project_id and work_item_type_id combinations on scope. The 'params' parameter is not explained (it's a generic catch-all), but the overall parameter usage is well-covered. A minor gap but still strong.

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 'List custom work item properties,' a specific verb and resource. It then details scope resolution rules for different argument combinations, clearly distinguishing the behavior from sibling property-related tools like list_work_item_property_options and retrieve_work_item_property.

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 provides explicit guidance: prefer no args for workspace-wide fetch, and outlines a clear PQL workflow. It explains when to use each argument combination but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, though the context is strong.

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