list_module_work_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior (cursor, per_page default and range, output envelope with next_cursor and prev_cursor), sorting syntax, and expand/field selection. It does not mention side effects, but as a list operation this is inherently non-destructive. The return structure is well explained.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line purpose, a clear Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds information; there is no fluff or repetition. The front-loaded purpose statement is immediately useful.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not shown, the description covers all parameters and the paginated return envelope. It is sufficiently complete for making a correct call, though it could have gone one step further by explicitly contrasting with list_work_items or other list variants. Overall, the complexity is handled well.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful parameter semantics: project_id and module_id are identified as UUIDs, order_by syntax is specified, per_page has a range and default, cursor is tied to a previous response's next_cursor, and expand/fields are explained. The pql parameter is covered in greater detail in the schema, but the description still gives a concise summary and a pointer to the 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 begins with a specific, unambiguous verb and resource: 'List work items in a module.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_items, list_cycle_work_items, and list_milestone_work_items by scoping to a module. The optional PQL filtering is an additional useful qualifier.

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 establishes the tool's context: it lists work items within a specific module, identified by project_id and module_id. It also explains how to optionally filter via PQL and that omitting PQL lists all items. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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