get_work_item_type_field_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the domain context ('[Project Management]') and core action ('Get field configuration'), followed by the target resource. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (three required IDs, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, or output details. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must guess at safety, response format, and error handling. The description meets the bare minimum for a read operation but doesn't provide enough context for confident use.

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 100%, with all three parameters (organizationId, projectId, workItemTypeId) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., hierarchical nesting) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Get field configuration') and target resource ('for a specific work item type'), with a domain context hint ('[Project Management]'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'get_work_item_type' (which likely returns type metadata, not field configuration) and 'get_work_item' (which returns work item instances). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_work_item_types' or 'list_work_item_types' which list types rather than field configurations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing organization/project/type IDs), when not to use it (e.g., for listing all types), or direct alternatives like 'get_work_item_type' (for type metadata) or 'list_work_item_types' (for enumerating types). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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