pdg_workitems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important edge case (returns empty list when PDG not generated) and explicitly mentions the limiting effects of status_filter and max_items. It does not mention error conditions or whether it may trigger cooking, but the read-only semantics are clear from the verb 'read'.

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, well-structured sentence. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful behavior (return fields, empty-list behavior, filter limits). There is no repetitive or redundant wording.

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?

The description provides useful context: return fields, empty-list behavior, and result limits. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it falls short of explaining the exact return format and the roles of ctx and node_path. It is functional but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions status_filter and max_items by name and their limiting role, but does not describe acceptable values or format. The required parameters ctx and node_path are not mentioned at all, leaving their purpose 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?

The description states a specific operation: reading generated work item summaries with fields index/name/state. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like pdg_cook or pdg_status by focusing on the work item summary rather than cooking or overall status.

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?

Usage is implied: it is a read-only inspection tool for generated work items, likely after a PDG cook. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over pdg_status or other PDG tools, nor any conditions where it should not be used.

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