list_work_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the notion that work packages include tasks, bugs, features, etc., which is mild domain context. It does not describe pagination behavior beyond the schema or return characteristics, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 focused sentence: 'List workpackages with advanced filtering (tasks, bugs, features, etc.).' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no filler or 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?

For a list tool with 6 optional parameters, all fully documented in the schema, and no output schema or nested objects, the description plus schema are largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. search_work_packages, but that does not make the definition incomplete for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter has a clear description (e.g., offset, search, status, priority, project_id, assignee_id). The tool description adds no new semantics beyond saying 'advanced filtering,' so it does not compensate with extra meaning. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'List work packages with advanced filtering.' It identifies a specific verb and resource, and the mention of filtering distinguishes it from simple retrieval tools like get_work_package. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_work_packages.

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 implies usage for listing and filtering work packages, and the parenthetical 'tasks, bugs, features, etc.' gives some context about the domain. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like search_work_packages. The usage is clear enough by implication but not explicitly stated.

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