list_work_items

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

The description reveals key behaviors: automatic pagination (so all items are fetched), expand semantics (defaulting to state/assignees/labels), and the default project ID behavior. With no annotations, these details help the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond what the schema shows.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds essential operational detail without redundancy.

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 low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the clear explanations of pagination, expand, and default project ID, the description covers the necessary context for using this tool effectively.

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 description explains both parameters: expand controls which related objects are inlined (with a default), and project_id can be omitted to use the default project. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions (0% coverage), though it doesn't enumerate all expand values.

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 tool lists work items in a project, with automatic pagination. The verb 'list' and resource 'work items' are specific, and it is distinguished from sibling search tools by the scope 'all work items in a project'.

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 clear context that this tool is for listing all work items in a project, with pagination and expand behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like search_work_items or list_cycle_work_items, but the project-wide scope is clear.

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