list_workitems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated, multiple status values are treated as alternatives under one condition, assigned_to_me scopes to the current AccessKey user, and each result carries an isMine flag.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and filter semantics packed efficiently. Nothing is redundant, though the multi-clause second sentence is slightly heavy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers pagination, filtering, and the isMine flag. The main gap is that it never explains how next_token drives pagination or what max_results bounds, which matters for an 8-parameter list tool.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most filters: subject_contains (title), status_ids (multi-value OR semantics), assigned_to, sprint_id, and assigned_to_me. It leaves category (required), next_token, and max_results unexplained, though category's enum and max_results' bounds are self-documenting in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '分页查询当前项目的工作项' (paginated query of work items in the current project), which clearly separates it from the singular get_workitem sibling. It does not explicitly name any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It lists the available filters (title, status, assignee, sprint) and explains the assigned_to_me shortcut, which implies when to reach for this tool. However, it never states when to prefer get_workitem, list_workitem_statuses, or other siblings, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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