list_module_work_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a modest behavioral detail by stating it lists 'all' work items in a module, but it does not discuss pagination, ordering, or what fields are returned.

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 6-word sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core action, though it is also very terse.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits any information about return values, pagination, or the relationship between project_id and module_id. It is minimally sufficient for a simple list tool but leaves significant gaps for a client to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only references 'module' (mapping to module_id). It does not explain the required project_id parameter or the optional params object, leaving their meaning and purpose unclear.

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 uses a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List all work items in a module.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_work_items, list_cycle_work_items, and list_milestone_work_items by specifying the module context.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to prefer this tool over list_work_items or other list variants, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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