audit_work_items

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Without changing them' is valuable assurance that this is non-mutating, but it says nothing about auth requirements, whether it scans all work items (cost/latency), or what 'structural and quality gaps' concretely means.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the read-only constraint is front-loaded before the purpose. Every clause adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained. However, with no annotations and an undocumented project_id, the definition leaves gaps around scope breadth (single project vs all) and execution cost that matter for an audit tool.

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?

One optional project_id parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no guidance on what the parameter scopes or what happens when it is omitted (default null, presumably wider scope).

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 verb and resource ('Audit Plane work items') and adds the output artifact ('reports structural and quality gaps'). This distinguishes it from plain retrieval siblings like list_work_items and find_work_items by implying analysis rather than listing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'For a human-approved cleanup' implies the context of use (pre-cleanup assessment), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to run this or get_standardization_plan / find_duplicate_candidates first.

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