list_workitem_fields

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's job is lighter. It does add that results include required-ness and option lists, which is genuine behavioral context about what comes back, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether custom fields are included.

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?

A single compact sentence with the subject and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient but so terse that useful guidance was dropped rather than trimmed.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining meaningful gap is that an agent is not told how to source a valid workitem_type_id, which is the only way this single-parameter call can fail.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it does clarify that the single parameter identifies a workitem type, which the bare schema (type string + regex pattern) does not state. However, it adds no guidance on where to obtain the ID or what happens if the ID is unknown.

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 gives a specific verb (列出/list) tied to a specific resource (指定工作项类型的字段定义/field definitions of a given workitem type) and even names the payload contents (required flag, options). An agent can tell it apart from list_workitem_types because the object being listed is field metadata, not types. It stops short of 5 only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling listing 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (the caller must already know a valid workitem_type_id, presumably from list_workitem_types), and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it. Usage can only be inferred from the purpose sentence itself.

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