List project work assignments

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds a bit of context by enumerating the kinds of objects returned (durable contracts, bounded attempts, etc.), but it does not explain their semantics or any behavioral quirks like pagination or filtering. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, the unusual enumeration of item types makes it less immediately understandable than a plain 'List work assignments for a project.' Still, it earns a strong score for brevity.

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 list tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves key questions unanswered: What exactly are 'bounded attempts' or 'result references'? Does status filter the list? Is there any pagination? The safe-read annotations cover safety, but the functional behavior remains underdescribed, making this incomplete for a 2-parameter tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters, so the description should compensate. It does not mention the project_id requirement or that status filters results, nor does it clarify the meaning of the status values. The parameter names and enum provide basic clues, but the description fails to add value 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?

The description uses the verb 'List' and specifies the resource as project work assignments, elaborated with a set of item types (contracts, attempts, leases, budgets, result references). While the enumeration is jargon-heavy, it clarifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_artifacts or list_projects. The title reinforces the meaning, earning a solid but not perfect score.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool lists, leaving the agent to infer its use case from the sibling set. This is a clear gap.

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