List Work Items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add one behavioral trait beyond the title ('paginated') and implies a read-only operation via 'List', but it doesn't describe cursor behavior, expand/sort semantics, or any other side effects or requirements.

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 sentence with no filler. The key information — action, resource, scope, and pagination — is front-loaded and every word 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?

Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, 'List work items in a project (paginated)' is nearly sufficient. The main missing element is routing guidance toward search or single-item alternatives, which was already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for fully documented parameters.

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 states a clear verb ('List'), resource ('work items'), and scope ('in a project'), which distinguishes it from single-item or project-level tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from the search_work_items or advanced_search_work_items siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no reference to alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. An agent is left to infer that this is for the default paginated listing rather than search or filtered retrieval, but nothing in the description says so.

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