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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses default filtering ('Defaults to items you created or are assigned'), scope semantics, tenant-specific ship_seat[] return behavior, and the thin return identity. It does not explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior, but 'List' strongly implies read-only, and the described behaviors add meaningful context.

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 dense but purposeful: four sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover usage scope, tenant-specific behavior, and sibling differentiation. Every clause adds information, though the second sentence is long and mixes use cases with return shape; still, it remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating return identity (pr, artifact, card_id, spawn_session_id) and ship_seat[] arrays. It covers defaults, scope, tenant behavior, and relationship to get_command_center_items. It does not enumerate every possible field or error condition, but for a list tool with rich parameter descriptions, it is complete enough.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining the default scope, the meaning of company-wide scope, and the ship-seat return behavior tied to include_ship_seat. It also frames the returned rows as a 'cross-session shared plan,' enriching the parameter context beyond the schema's individual field 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List shared work-graph items (lab_work_items)' for the operator/agent, and further clarifies the cross-session shared plan. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_command_center_items by explicitly stating 'Cards stay on get_command_center_items (decision cards only, not PR inventory)' and notes the thin identity returned (pr, artifact, card_id, spawn_session_id).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when coordinating queued/blocked/in-progress work across sessions, or reconciling a PR stamp.' It also clarifies default scope, the company-wide alternative via scope="company", and the FreedomOS-specific ship-seat behavior, plus explicitly steers decision cards to get_command_center_items as an alternative.

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