get_work_item_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns a formatted table with names, types, and descriptions, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a list operation.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, bulleted usage guidelines, and labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, but the parameter descriptions could be slightly more concise (e.g., clarifying optionality redundantly).

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters, usage, and return format. It covers the core needs for a list tool, though it lacks details on error handling or performance characteristics, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'team_context' as a dictionary with optional keys and 'work_item_type' as an optional filter. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify exact key formats or examples.

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 the verb 'Gets' and resource 'list of all work item templates for a team', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_work_item_template' (singular) and 'get_work_item_types' (types not templates). It specifies the scope (for a team) and purpose (list retrieval).

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?

Explicitly provides three use cases: finding templates for creation, getting IDs for other operations, and filtering by work item type. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_work_item' or 'get_work_item_types'.

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