list_customer_work_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a notable behavior: 'Returns all of them, unpaginated,' which is a key performance/usage trait. It also explains the filtering behavior of the parameters. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or confirm that it is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it).

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 concise and front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by an Args section and a Returns line. There is no wasted text. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to elaborate on return structure. It covers the main aspects: what it lists, the parameters, and the unpaginated behavior. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar list/search tools, which is a minor gap, but for a simple listing tool with explained parameters, it is fairly complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains all three parameters: customer_id ('UUID of the customer'), customer_request_id ('Only work items linked through this request of the customer'), and search ('Filter by work item name, sequence ID, or project identifier'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 function: 'List the work items linked to a customer.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('work items linked to a customer'), and adds the scoping detail 'linked to a customer' to distinguish from generic list_work_items. It also mentions 'unpaginated' to set expectations, which further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 gives clear context about what the tool does and what filters are available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_work_items or search_work_items. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of alternative tools, so the guidance is only implied.

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