Discover Work Item Status Values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavior context by specifying the return format (backend keys and display labels) and the sampling nature. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler. It is concise while still covering purpose and usage.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The annotations and schema provide additional safety and parameter details, making the overall package complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and constraints for sample_limit. The description only indirectly references work_item_type and project_key, adding no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already defines, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('sample actual status values') on a specific resource ('work item type') and names the outputs ('backend keys and display labels'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling workitem_query by framing this as a pre-filter discovery step, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before filtering workitem_query by status.' It also instructs the model not to guess generic constants like OPEN or IN_PROGRESS, which effectively identifies the alternative (guessing) and why this tool is better. This is clear context with a direct reference to a sibling tool.

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