get_work_item_states

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' and implies read-only aggregation, but it does not state whether the TOP node must be cooked, what state vocabulary is used, or what the return mapping looks like.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema and includes 'ctx: MCP context,' but the overall size is appropriate and no unnecessary detail is added.

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?

For a one-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient, but without an output schema or behavioral detail the agent is left to infer return shape and preconditions. A brief note on what 'state counts' returns would complete the picture.

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 node_path. It adds that node_path is a TOP node path, which narrows the value type, but it provides no path-format guidance or example. For a single required parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 identifies a get operation that returns counts of work item states scoped to a TOP node. The resource ('work item state counts') is distinct from sibling tools like get_work_item_info or get_failed_work_items, so an agent can discriminate. The specificity is sufficient without naming alternatives.

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?

No guidance about when to prefer this over related TOP/work-item tools, and no exclusions or alternative routing are given. The phrase 'for a TOP node' scopes the target but does not explain selection criteria or when not to use it.

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