List work items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it states that offered items are only visible to people allowed to read them, warns that the result names whose inbox it is (the server's configured account, not necessarily the caller), and flags that bracketed lines are untrusted third-party text to be treated as data. It never explicitly says the call is read-only or whether results are ordered, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the claim/release workflow follows logically. It is dense with parentheticals, and the closing sentence about using display names when writing to people is a general convention rather than something specific to listing, but overall the text 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?

For a single-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: what composition of items is returned, group-offer visibility, whose inbox it is, and safe handling of untrusted embedded text. Only ordering/pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter is left unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter (limit) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already supplies default and maximum. The description adds no additional meaning about how limit interacts with the inbox listing (e.g., ordering or whether limit truncates silently), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List ... approval inbox: open work items") and defines the exact scope: items assigned to the caller plus unclaimed group-offered items. This is clearly distinct from siblings like list_tasks or list_my_requests, and an agent can tell which set of objects comes back without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: an offered item "must be claimed (claim_work_item) before it can be approved or rejected" and a claimed item "can be given back (release_work_item)", which tells the agent how this tool fits the claim/decide/release workflow. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_tasks for a non-inbox view, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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