list_work_item_enum_options

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

Beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation, the description adds key behaviors: returns the FULL set, type-agnostic with '~', and unknown type fallback. No contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with core purpose, then usage guidance and behavioral notes.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: why to use it, how to use parameters correctly, and important behavioral caveats. No gaps.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains 'field_id' can be custom, 'work_item_type' accepts '~', and warns about silent fallback. However, page_size and page_number semantics are standard pagination; schema coverage is 60%.

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 tool lists valid enum options for a work item field. It specifies the resource ('work item field') and verb ('list'), and distinguishes from sibling 'list_document_enum_options' by noting 'Work-item fields only.'

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 states to call before 'create_work_items' / 'update_work_item' due to Polarion's lack of validation on write. Also warns to verify type id first because unknown types silently fall back to '~'.

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