azure_get_work_item_states

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Consulta' indicates a read-only query, and the 'use before' guidance provides behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it describe the response format or any potential errors. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and usage guidance second. No filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does and when to use it. It does not mention the return format, but given the tool's simplicity and the clear naming, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides a full description and an enum for the single 'type' parameter, so the description adds no additional semantic value. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema states, so it earns the baseline score.

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 uses the specific verb 'Consulta' (queries) and names the resource 'estados válidos para um tipo de work item' (valid states for a work item type). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/update/delete tools. The scope 'no projeto' (in the project) adds context.

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 explicitly instructs to use the tool 'ANTES de criar ou atualizar work items' (BEFORE creating or updating work items) with a specific state. This gives a clear when-to-use directive. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, though the sibling context implies the create/update tools are the ones it precedes.

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