get_work_item_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Gets'), which is appropriate, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds some context about what information is returned, but could be more comprehensive for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, args, returns), front-loading key information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 a good job explaining the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. It covers essential context for a read operation, though could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or authentication requirements.

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 explains both parameters ('project' as 'Project ID or project name' and 'type_name' as 'The name of the work item type'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format constraints 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 specific action ('Gets detailed information') and resource ('about a specific work item type'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_work_item_types' (plural) which likely lists multiple types. The purpose is precise and avoids tautology.

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 lists three use cases (e.g., 'Get complete details', 'Understand the states and transitions'), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It differentiates from alternatives by focusing on detailed info for a single type, unlike broader tools like '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.