list_work_items

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination behavior with cursor, the effect of expand on data richness, and the URL format for linking to work items. These are non-obvious traits not captured by the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, giving the agent a clear understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 and well-structured: a clear lead sentence, then filter capabilities, a specific expand usage, pagination instructions, and a linking format example. Every sentence adds operational value without redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (21 parameters, no output schema), the description provides essential operational context: filtering options, pagination using cursor, expand guidance, and a materialized URL format. It lacks details on default response structure and error behavior, but is sufficiently complete for a read-only listing tool with good annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 5%, the description compensates by listing the key filter categories (priority, state, assignees, labels, dates, cycle, module) and explaining the expand and cursor parameters with concrete examples. However, it omits guidance on many other parameters (order_by, per_page, fields, archived, etc.), leaving some ambiguity for those.

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 'List work items (issues) in a project' with a specific verb and resource, and highlights the project scope, distinguishing it from other list tools like list_cycle_work_items. It also immediately enumerates filtering capabilities, making the tool's purpose immediately comprehensible.

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 explicit instructions on using expand, pagination with cursor, and linking format. It explains when to use the tool (listing work items with filters) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like search_work_items or list_cycle_work_items, though the context is clear enough.

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