list_work_items

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: module/body fields are not Lucene-indexed, and SQL queries must be adapted from a recipe. This adds significant context for correct usage.

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 and then provides necessary details in a logical order. A few sentences could be tightened, but every part adds value without redundancy.

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's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers search modes, limitations, and dependencies (get_sql_query_recipes). It could briefly mention pagination behavior, but overall it is complete.

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 parameter 'query' is well explained with examples and constraints, compensating for the schema's limited description. However, pagination parameters (page_size, page_number) receive no explanatory text, and overall schema description coverage is 50%.

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 tool's action ('List / search work items in a project.') and distinguishes it from siblings that handle single items (get_work_item, read_work_item) or different resources (documents). The specific verb-resource combination is unambiguous.

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 detailed guidance on how to construct queries using Lucene or SQL, including explicit warnings about unsupported searches and a prerequisite to call get_sql_query_recipes first. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or specify when to use this tool over alternatives like read_work_item.

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