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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'List' implies a non-mutating read, which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs. It adds nothing about pagination, scope limits, or visibility/permission requirements, which is defensible for a trivial read but leaves gaps.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the bidirectional output scope; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, the return shape need not be described, and the single parameter is fully documented, so the definition is nearly sufficient. The only shortfall is absent guidance on when this call is preferable to related work_* inspection tools.

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% with a single documented work_id (UUID), so the schema already carries the load. The phrase 'a task' weakly reinforces that work_id identifies the task, but adds no format or constraint beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (dependencies of a task) with the bidirectional scope spelled out — 'what a task is blocked by and what it blocks.' This clearly separates it from work_dependency_add/work_dependency_remove, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'List' and the directional framing suggest a read-only inspection call, but there is no statement of when to reach for this versus work_get, work_subtasks_list, or work_list, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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