Listar work packages de OpenProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool fetches work packages and can filter them, but it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, response format, authentication requirements, or how filters combine. This is a minimal disclosure with no extra context beyond the obvious read operation.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and filter options without any fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple list tool with three optional filters and no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain what fields are returned, how filters interact, or any default behavior. For a tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps about the actual usage experience.

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 67% (status and assignee have descriptions, projectId does not). The description mentions filters by project, status, and assignee, which helps map projectId to 'proyecto', adding meaning to that undocumented parameter. However, it adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema, and two parameters already had descriptions.

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 'Obtiene tareas/work packages, opcionalmente filtradas por proyecto, status o assignee' clearly states the verb (obtiene/get), the resource (work packages/tareas), and the optional filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_activities and get_time_entries by naming the specific resource.

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 implies this tool is for fetching work packages with optional filters, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_entries or get_activities, nor any exclusion conditions. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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