list_module_work_items

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

The description fully discloses the read-only nature (consistent with readOnlyHint), pagination behavior, optional expansions, field selection, and the return envelope structure. It adds value beyond annotations by explaining PQL usage and UUID resolution.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, but is slightly lengthy due to extensive PQL guidance. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and could be trimmed slightly, but remains effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all aspects: required params, optional filters, pagination, expansions, and return values. It is complete and provides sufficient context for correct agent usage.

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 only 13% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by documenting all 8 parameters in the Args section, including default values, constraints (per_page 1-100), and detailed PQL syntax with examples. This adds significant meaning 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 the tool lists work items in a module with optional PQL filtering. It specifies the required parameters (project_id, module_id) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_items which lists all work items without module scoping.

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 detailed guidance on using PQL with examples, references to other tools (list_projects, get_pql_reference), and pagination with cursor. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the module context is clear.

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