list_work_packages

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, or any other side effects, missing an opportunity to add value.

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 concise and directly stated in one sentence. It contains no redundant words or fluff, earning a solid score for efficiency, though it could add slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and minimal description, the agent is left without information about the return shape or content. The lack of usage guidance and behavioral details makes the description insufficient for a complete understanding, especially in a large sibling toolset.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (limit, offset, project_id) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description provides no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a clear action ('Fetch') and resource ('list of work packages'). It clearly indicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_work_package or list_projects, which are also list/get 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, preconditions, or a preference over related tools such as get_work_package or search tools. This leaves the selection criteria entirely to the agent.

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