list_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Local filters' hints that filtering happens client-side rather than server-side and 'bounded pagination' hints at a result cap, but neither is explained, and there is no disclosure of read-only safety, permission requirements, or how filtering interacts with pagination.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally good, but the brevity is achieved by packing meaning into unexplained phrases rather than by efficient communication. Concise but under-informative.

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 covers return values, but for a 15-parameter, zero-annotation tool the description leaves too much unstated: no filter semantics, no pagination continuation rule, and no indication of which filters are mutually exclusive. It is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it names none of them. Filter dimensions (cycle_ids, state_ids, assignee_ids, priorities, updated_after/before), the query semantics, and the interaction between include_completed and state_types are all left entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb and resource ('List project work items'), but the qualifiers 'cross-edition local filters' and 'bounded pagination' are opaque jargon that don't tell an agent what makes this listing different from siblings like find_work_items or audit_work_items. An agent can identify the resource but not the distinguishing scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely named sibling find_work_items, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an active project context. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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