list_module_work_items

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 only states 'list', indicating a read operation, but omits details on pagination, ordering, side effects, or whether it returns all items in the module. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include behavioral hints without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core function but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. The presence of an output schema and high schema coverage raise the baseline, but the description alone does not fully equip an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides (project_id, module_id, params). It implies the required parameters but does not elaborate on the optional 'params' dictionary or its potential usage.

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 'List work items in a module' clearly states the verb (list), the resource (work items), and the scope (in a module). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cycle_work_items or list_milestone_work_items, which operate on different containers.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_work_items (which may lack filtering) or other container-specific list tools. There are no mentions of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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