get_pr_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the burden. It only notes 'read-only', leaving out potential behavioral traits like pagination, performance, error handling, or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every word adds value. No irrelevant details.

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 (2 params, list action) and the presence of an output schema, the description is almost complete. It could mention error cases or default behavior, but the core usage is adequately covered.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies that 'pr_url_or_id' accepts full URLs or numeric IDs, and explains 'working_directory' as an optional path. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 work items linked to a PR') and includes a read-only hint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_work_item (generic) and PR modification tools.

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 context (when needing work items for a PR) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance. However, since no sibling tool duplicates this function, the clarity is sufficient.

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