list_work_items

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states 'list', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency or non-destructiveness. It does not mention pagination behavior (though schema includes limit/offset), rate limits, or results when empty. The description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the implied read-only nature.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details. However, it could optionally include a brief note on default pagination or key filters without becoming verbose.

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 high parameter count (15) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not cover return format, default sorting, or common usage patterns. Sibling tools are numerous, and this description does not provide enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior in complex scenarios.

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 93%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning, simply summarizing 'optional filters and sorting'. This meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance agent understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List work items in a project with optional filters and sorting', specifying the verb (list), resource (work items), context (in a project), and capabilities (filters/sorting). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_work_item' or 'list_work_item_attachments', though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, when to use list_work_items vs get_work_item, or how to choose between filters is not mentioned. The description lacks context to help the agent decide usage.

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