get_work_item_states

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 operation returning counts, but never states that it is non-mutating/read-only, what permissions or node state it requires, whether it cooks the TOP network, or how the counts are structured.

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 definition is very short and front-loads the purpose. The 'Args: ctx: MCP context' line is boilerplate that does not map to any schema parameter and is mild noise, but overall the entry is 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic intent. It stops short of explaining the return shape (what states appear, whether counts are per-state) and any side effects, leaving gaps for an agent relying only on this text.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter (node_path). The description supplies a domain hint ('TOP node path') that the schema's bare string type lacks, adding some value. It still does not specify path syntax or whether the path must be absolute, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('work item state counts for a TOP node'), which is clear and non-tautological. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_work_item_info or get_failed_work_items, so an agent cannot easily tell when to prefer this tool over those.

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 phrase 'for a TOP node' gives a minimal context cue but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many TOP-related siblings (get_work_item_info, get_failed_work_items, dirty_work_items). Guidance is absent.

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