List work packages

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 mentions filter syntax and common fields but does not describe behavior for pagination (offset, pageSize), sorting (sortBy), grouping (groupBy), or the 'raw' parameter. The return structure is not described.

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-loading the purpose. It efficiently conveys scope and filter support, though it could include more details without significant increase in length.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core use case but omits details about return format, pagination behavior, and parameter interactions. Sibling tools imply a rich ecosystem, but the description alone is insufficient for complex queries.

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 low (14%). The description adds value by listing common filter fields and their operators (e.g., '~' for subject), but it does not describe other parameters like sortBy, groupBy, offset, pageSize, or raw. This partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 action ('List work packages') and the resource, with optional scoping to a project. It distinguishes from siblings like op_get_work_package which fetches a single work package, and op_create_work_package which creates new ones.

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 mentions optional scoping and filter syntax, implying when to use filters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., if you need a single work package, use op_get_work_package) or alternatives like op_list_attachments.

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