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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional state filter, but does not describe the output format, whether it returns all work items or has pagination, ordering, or any side effects. Given that this is a read-only list operation, the description misses the opportunity to clarify safety and return behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function and scope. It is optimally concise for the simplicity of the operation.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It covers the main purpose and the state filter, but does not mention the return value (a list of work items) or any edge cases. For a simple list tool, this is reasonable but not fully complete, especially without annotations to fill in safety or output context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that 'path' refers to a TOP node and 'state' functions as an optional filter, which adds interpretation beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify the allowed state values, path syntax, or defaults beyond the schema's default of null.

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 for a TOP node, with an optional state filter. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling PDG tools like pdg_cook, pdg_status, or pdg_dirty, which have different actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, without mentioning when it is appropriate or when to prefer other tools like pdg_status for checking node state or pdg_cook for cooking. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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