get_work_item_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation and enumerates the relationship categories returned, which is useful context. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, pagination, error behavior, or whether relationships are returned in a particular order.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the resource without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should ideally clarify the 'project_id' parameter and note any behavioral constraints. It covers the relationship types but leaves gaps around parameters and operational behavior.

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 for both parameters. It implies that 'work_item_id' identifies the work item whose relations are read, but it provides no explanation of 'project_id' or its role, leaving half of the parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('one work item's dependency, duplicate, schedule, and related-work relationships'). It clearly distinguishes this retrieval tool from the sibling mutation tool 'add_work_item_relation' by focusing on reading existing relationships.

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 that this tool is used when you need to inspect relationships for a single work item, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives like 'find_work_items' or explicitly say not to use it for creating relations. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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