list_work_items

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds significant behavioral details: Lucene vs. SQL behavior, indexing restrictions (module/body not indexed), SQL escaping requirements, and warnings about LIKE/EXISTS. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into clear sections (SQL prefix) with bold headers. Every sentence provides essential information; there is no fluff. Despite length, the density of value justifies it.

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?

The description covers all key aspects: query options, indexing limits, SQL guidelines, and what to avoid. Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. The description is comprehensive for a complex 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?

The description adds substantial meaning to the 'query' parameter (explaining Lucene syntax, SQL prefix, and limitations), which is the most complex parameter. With 50% schema coverage, this compensates well. However, it does not add additional semantics to project_id, page_size, or page_number beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List and search work items in a Polarion project', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create, update, delete, etc.) by focusing on listing/searching.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use Lucene queries vs. SQL prefix, with detailed notes on indexing limitations and SQL escaping. It also advises consulting get_sql_query_recipes before hand-writing SQL, offering clear alternatives and context.

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