list_archived_work_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying pagination details (next_cursor, prev_cursor), default sorting (by archived_at), and that results are returned in a paginated envelope. No contradictions.

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 structured as a docstring with Args and Returns sections. It is clear and informative, though the PQL example is somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the purpose effectively.

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 description still details the return structure (paginated envelope with total_count, next_cursor, prev_cursor). It covers all parameters and provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Despite low schema description coverage (14%), the description provides defaults and meanings for all 7 parameters (project_id, pql, order_by, per_page, cursor, expand, fields). It includes PQL examples and explains sorting syntax, adding significant 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 clearly states 'List archived work items in a project with optional PQL filtering.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (archived work items), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_work_items' (non-archived) and 'search_work_items'.

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?

The description provides default behaviors and parameter guidance (e.g., 'Omit to list all archived items') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_work_items' or 'search_work_items'. The context of archived vs. active is implied.

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