work_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description is consistent. It adds some behavioral context by noting output includes 'objective previews and criteria counts,' but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, scope limits, or the exact shape of the returned records.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the verb, the resource type, and the key output components are all included.

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?

For a simple, parameterless read-only list tool, the description covers the essential purpose and output highlights. It lacks an explicit return schema or details about filtering, but the low complexity and zero parameters keep the requirement modest.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameters, and no parameter documentation is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('durable work records'), and distinctive output aspects ('objective previews and criteria counts'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like work_get (single record), get_active_work (active vs. durable), and get_work_graph (graph structure).

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 phrase 'durable work records' provides clear context that this lists persisted work items rather than active/transient work, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_work. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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