list_work_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, permissions required, or what happens when wiql/queryId/top/skip are combined. 'List work items' tells the agent nothing about the shape or size of the response, which matters for an 8-parameter listing endpoint.

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 single sentence is efficient with zero waste, but the terseness is under-specification rather than disciplined brevity. There is no front-loaded structure covering filtering modes or pagination for a tool with eight optional parameters.

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 an eight-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the relationship between wiql, queryId, and the project/team scoping parameters, and whether results are paged. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at call semantics.

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 each of the eight parameters is already documented in the schema, including the WIQL query, saved query ID, and field reference names. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline given the schema's completeness.

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 ('List work items') scoped to a project, so the agent knows this is a read/list operation over work items. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling search_work_items, nor does it hint at how it relates to get_work_item or create_work_item.

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 guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over search_work_items, and no indication of which query mechanism (wiql, queryId, or plain project listing) is appropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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