Retrieve a complete work category definition, including purpose, exit artifacts, and tasks with default owning roles, by supplying its id or key. Use it to clarify delivery expectations and enforce standards.
Describe one work category in full: purpose, exit artifacts, and the tasks with their default owning role. Accepts an id such as '02' or a key such as 'requirements'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation returns a full description of one category and identifies the specific content fields, which is sufficient for a simple read-style lookup. It does not cover error/not-found behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and output content, then gives parameter examples. 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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what it returns and what the parameter accepts. It could be more complete by explicitly routing between list_work_categories and get_work_category, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.
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%, but the description compensates by explaining that the single 'category' parameter accepts either an id ('02') or a key ('requirements'). This gives the agent concrete guidance on how to populate the required parameter, though it does not enumerate all accepted key formats.
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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Describe one work category in full' and names the specific content dimensions (purpose, exit artifacts, tasks with default owning role). This distinguishes it from sibling list_work_categories, which likely enumerates categories rather than describing a single one.
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 implies when to use it: when full details of one work category are needed, rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.