list_work_item_property_options

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 discloses that the tool returns a List of WorkItemPropertyOption objects, which is useful, but it does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or error behavior. For a list operation this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args/Returns format. It front-loads the main purpose and every sentence provides necessary information without any filler.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly for the core use case. The main gap is the vague 'params' parameter and lack of detail on pagination or result ordering, but the output schema covers return shape.

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. It explains property_id (UUID of the work item property) and project_id (UUID of the project, with omit-for-workspace-scope guidance), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, 'params' is only described as 'Optional query parameters' without details on what filters or options are available, leaving a gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List options for a work item property') that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_item_properties (which lists properties, not options) and retrieve_work_item_property_option (which retrieves a single option).

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 when to use the tool through its name and first sentence, and it provides scoping guidance ('Omit for workspace scope'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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