list_work_package_watchers

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 states that it lists watchers, with no mention of side effects, authentication requirements, pagination, or read-only nature. This is a minimal disclosure for a list operation, lacking any extra 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 extremely concise, with two sentences, and front-loads the action. The parameter clarification is presented immediately after the main statement, making it easy to scan. Every word adds value, with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, it does not mention what the response contains or if there are any special behaviors like pagination, but this is minor given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 schema only provides a generic 'work_package_id' parameter with anyOf integer/string, but the description adds crucial guidance: it accepts either an internal id (e.g., 952) or display_id (e.g., 'PROJ-51'), and clarifies that the UI display number is not used. This meaningfully improves parameter understanding beyond the raw 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 action ('List') and the resource ('watchers of a work package'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_package_attachments and list_work_package_file_links by specifying the exact resource. The verb-resource combination is unambiguous.

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 implicitly suggests this tool is for retrieving watchers of a work package, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Since there are no direct sibling tools for watchers, the implied usage is acceptable, but the lack of explicit context keeps it at a 3.

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