get_work_item_relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Get all linked work items' but does not clarify if this includes both incoming and outgoing links, whether the operation is read-only, or any potential side effects. The description is too minimal for full transparency.

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 consists of two short sentences that are direct and efficient. Every word contributes to purpose and usage guidance, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 with one parameter and no output schema. However, the description fails to explain the return value (e.g., list of work item IDs or objects, hierarchical structure) and does not mention any limits or pagination. This lack of completeness could hinder correct interpretation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'Work item ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states 'Get all linked work items', specifying the verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_work_item (single work item) and link_work_items (create links). However, it does not specify the type of relations (e.g., parent/child), leaving some ambiguity.

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 a specific use case: 'Use after bulk linking to verify hierarchy.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling list includes related tools, and the implied guidance is adequate.

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