list_work_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists work packages but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether it's read-only, pagination details (implied by 'pageSize' but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions, which are essential for an agent to use the tool effectively. The mention of 'optional filters' is too vague to cover these gaps.

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 description mentions 'optional filters' which aligns with the parameters in the schema, but adds no specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (schema description coverage is 100%). Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('work packages'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_work_package' or 'get_children' that might also retrieve work packages in different contexts.

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?

The description mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_work_package' (for a single package) or 'get_children' (for child packages). It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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