list_work_item_enum_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that invalid enum ids cause rejection on write and that an unknown work_item_type silently falls back to '~'. These are useful behavioral details beyond the annotation but not extensive.

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?

Two concise sentences, no fluff. First sentence states main purpose, second adds usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 the output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers the main use case, prerequisites, and a critical fallback behavior. Could mention pagination or the output format, but overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 60% and the description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already says. The description implies the 'type' parameter but adds no new semantic detail for field_id, project_id, page_size, or page_number.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'valid enum option ids for a work item field of a given type'. Differentiates from sibling list_document_enum_options by specificity to work items. Fully unambiguous.

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 instructs to call before create/update work items because invalid enum ids are rejected. Also warns about the fallback of unknown work_item_type to '~' and recommends verifying the type id first. Provides both context and caveat.

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