List work items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains OData filtering and pagination via top/skip parameters, but does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The lack of output schema description also limits transparency on return structure.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second provides useful filter examples. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers filtering and pagination examples, but lacks information on default return behavior (e.g., default sort order, whether all fields are returned) and error handling.

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%, providing names and descriptions for parameters. The description adds value by giving concrete OData filter examples and listing PrimaryStatus values, which are not in the schema. This helps agents build correct filter expressions.

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 it lists or searches work items in Karbon, which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like get_work_item (single) and create_work_item (creation) by indicating listing/search functionality.

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 explicit filter examples and status values, guiding when to use specific filters. It implicitly suggests use cases like filtering by status or email, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or list alternatives like searching by other criteria.

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