List Related Work Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a dependency on relation_meta_definitions but does not elaborate on response format or error behavior, so with annotations lowering the bar, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and no redundant phrasing. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key prerequisite.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential prerequisite and relies on the schema for parameter details. It could mention pagination or response structure, but the schema includes page_num/page_size with defaults, making it reasonably complete.

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 86%, so most parameters are documented. The description reinforces the roles of relation_id and relation_field_key by directing to relation_meta_definitions, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 work items linked by a relation field, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like workitem_query or workitem_get by focusing on relation-based linking.

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 explicitly instructs to call relation_meta_definitions first when relation_id or relation_field_key is unknown, providing a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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