list_work_item_relation_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the distinction between built_in_dependencies and custom_definitions, explains that custom_definitions are managed by sibling CRUD tools, and outlines group semantics. It does not mention read-only behavior explicitly, but 'List' implies it and this is not a mutation.

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 well-structured: a lead sentence stating purpose, a usage directive, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the key usage point is front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the two parameter filters, the two output groups, and the relationship to create/update/delete operations. Minor omissions like whether filters affect built-in dependencies are implied by the wording.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'is_default: Filter custom definitions to default/non-default only' and 'is_active: Filter custom definitions to active/inactive only' adds meaning beyond the raw schema. It doesn't specify what happens when both filters are combined, but the core semantics are clear.

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 'List every relation type usable with create_work_item_relation', naming a specific verb, resource, and purpose. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_item_relations by focusing on relation types, not actual relations.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Match the user's wording against an entry here before creating a relation.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. It also references create/update/delete_work_item_relation_definition as managers of custom definitions, differentiating from those siblings, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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