List Work Item Fields

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds functional context by explaining that the tool reveals valid field keys, types, and options, which is useful beyond the annotation's safety profile. It does not conflict with 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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every word is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With a 5-parameter tool and no output schema, the description explains the tool's role and expected findings ('valid field_key values, field types, and options'). It does not cover pagination or filtering behavior in prose, but the schema covers parameters, and the description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 high (80%), with meaningful descriptions for most parameters. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries the semantic weight. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'field configuration for a work item type in a project'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating its role in discovering valid field_key values before create/update operations.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use this before workitem_create or workitem_update'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for discovery (e.g., workitem_meta_types), so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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