list_archived_work_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It covers pagination (cursor, next_cursor, prev_cursor), defaults for ordering and per_page, and the optional filter behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'List' implies it, and the pagination details add substantial 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 well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes necessary parameter or return information, and there is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool with pagination.

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 complexity (7 params, pagination, PQL filtering), the description covers all parameters, defaults, return envelope, and pagination mechanics. It also mentions output schema details in the Returns section, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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 coverage is only 14% (only pql has a description), so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful one-line explanations for all 7 parameters, including defaults and usage (e.g., order_by prefix, per_page range, cursor source, expand/fields format). This adds significant value beyond the sparse 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List archived work items') and clearly scopes it to 'in a project' with 'optional PQL filtering'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_items and list_intake_work_items, so purpose 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 clearly conveys that this tool is for archived work items and explains the default behavior ('Omit to list all archived items'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_work_items for non-archived items. Context is clear, but exclusions are not spelled out.

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