list_work_item_relation_definitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read. The description adds context about the return structure (built_in_dependencies and custom_definitions) and the parameter filters. 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 clear sections and parameter explanations. It is slightly lengthy but front-loads the primary purpose. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 annotations and the presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return structure. It lacks mention of pagination or error handling, but overall sufficient for a listing tool.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: is_default and is_active, including their purpose (filtering custom definitions). This compensates entirely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states it lists every relation type usable with create_work_item_relation, and distinguishes between built_in_dependencies and custom_definitions. It also advises the user to match wording before creating a relation, differentiating from related tools like list_work_item_relations.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (before creating a relation) and explains the two categories and their management tools (create/update/delete_work_item_relation_definition). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_work_item_relations, which list actual links.

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