list_areas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List area paths', implying a read operation, but gives no details about return format, ordering, depth behavior, or pagination. The description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare function name.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and provides a brief use-case note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple, with only two optional parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain what the returned area paths look like, how depth affects results, or whether a project is required. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps in expected behavior.

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% (both `depth` and `project` have descriptions), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds tangential context about filtering work items but does not elaborate on how parameters affect the list. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'area paths' and scope 'in a project'. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on commits, work items, builds, etc. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear use-case context: it is 'useful for organizing and filtering work items by team or component'. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the context sufficiently guides an agent to select this tool when area paths are relevant.

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