work_list

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

Reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation ('Read-only') and adds useful context beyond it: identifies concept_patch as the mutation path and discloses that results include section and line info. Since there is no output schema, this output-content detail is valuable, though pagination/error behavior is untouched.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, leading with the definition of open work before the operational notes. The 'where as in concept_list' shorthand is efficient but slightly cryptic.

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?

Covers the read-only nature and the shape of returned work items, which matters given no output schema, but with 8 undocumented parameters and no annotations explanation of scope/pagination, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it precisely.

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?

With 0% schema coverage across 8 parameters, the description must carry the load, but it only touches where, fields, and order_by (noting they follow frontmatter keys as in concept_list). limit, offset, scope, stale, and the include enum are entirely unexplained.

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 (open work), then defines what 'open work' means concretely: concepts in an open status and unchecked '- [ ]' items with section and line. It distinguishes itself from concept_list by scoping to open status/unchecked items, though the phrasing is dense.

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?

Implies the use case (finding open work) and routes mutations elsewhere via 'change work with concept_patch', but never explicitly contrasts when to call work_list versus concept_list, which it references for parameter semantics. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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