list_work_item_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return structure (dependencies grouped by six directions, custom by label) and implies a read-only list operation, but it does not mention permissions, error cases, or whether all relations are returned without pagination. This is moderate disclosure given the absence of annotations.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every piece of information (parameter types and return groups) is useful, with no redundant 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 list operation with an output schema, the description provides adequate context: it names the parameters, their role, and the return structure. However, it omits details like what the six directions are, what a 'definition label' refers to, and whether pagination or filtering is supported. This is sufficient for basic usage but leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 identifies both parameters as UUIDs with brief purpose ('of the project', 'of the work item'), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it does not provide deeper detail such as value formats or examples, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 every relation for a work item, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_item_links and list_work_item_relation_definitions by focusing on 'relations' and grouping them into dependencies and custom, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains what it does but does not mention when to choose it over list_work_item_links or list_work_item_relation_definitions, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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