List ready work items

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

Discloses concrete output behavior beyond annotations: one line per item, id/title fields, a [crit] marker for critical-path items, and critical-path-first ordering. Since there is no output schema, this return-format and sort-order detail is essential and well-covered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first packs action, scope, output format, and sorting; the second gives alternative-tool routing. Everything included 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 zero-parameter read-only list, the description fully covers scope, output format, marker semantics, sort order, and sibling-tool differentiation. Nothing needed for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 input schema is empty and required parameters are zero, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description implicitly signals a no-argument list command, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific action (List) and resource (work items in status ready), and includes the output shape and ordering. The description distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly naming `next` and `packet` as alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: use `ready` for the whole queue, `next` for a single recommendation, and `packet` for one item's full context. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over alternatives.

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