op_list_work_packages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: ordering by newest-id last, default status/project behavior, and the fact that project=all overrides OPENPROJECT_PROJECT_ID. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences and wastes no words. It front-loads the core action and ordering, then supplies the most important defaults and special cases in a compact, readable structure.

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?

For a read-only list operation with all parameters optional and fully described in the schema, the description is complete enough to guide correct invocation. It covers defaults, allowed status values, cross-project behavior, and ordering; annotations cover safety, and the schema covers pagination/search parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying that status=all "includes closed items" and that project=all searches across every project even when OPENPROJECT_PROJECT_ID is set, which goes beyond the schema's concise default-value notes.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List work packages," which clearly identifies the operation. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings like op_get_work_package by implying a collection-level query and adds useful ordering/scoping details (newest-id last, default project, status filtering).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it lists work packages with defaults for status and project, and explains special values like status=all and project=all. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as op_get_work_package for single-resource retrieval, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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