list_work_item_relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the specific relation types returned, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination, expansion, field selection, or any other behavioral details beyond the simple 'list all' scope.

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, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a compact list of relation types. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and a similarly named sibling (list_work_item_links), the description is too thin to provide a complete picture. It leaves pagination, filtering, response details, and the distinction from links unexplained, making the tool harder to use correctly compared to its schema and annotations.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. Parameters like cursor, expand, fields, order_by, and per_page are left entirely undefined, and even project_id is only implied by context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states 'List all relations for a work item' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates relation types (blocked_by, blocks, duplicate, relates_to). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_item_links, which likely handles different link types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_work_item_links or retrieve_work_item. The main clue is the relation types listed, which imply a use case, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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