list_work_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it explains the total_count is the true DB total, not page-bounded; the cursor usage; and the gotcha that a misnamed field in the sparse fieldset is simply absent. This discloses operational behavior well beyond the schema.

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: a one-line summary, usage pointers, an Args block, and a Returns block. It is relatively long but every sentence adds necessary detail for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

Despite the complexity (9 optional params, no annotations), the description covers all parameters, explains the output structure (results, total_count, cursors), and gives practical field-sparse usage guidance. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 11% (only pql has a schema description), but the description compensates by explaining every parameter: defaults, ranges, syntax, and semantics. It even clarifies field-name quirks like using `project` rather than `project_id`.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List work items with optional PQL filtering.' It also explains scope options (workspace-wide vs. project-specific), distinguishing this from more specific list tools like list_archived_work_items or list_cycle_work_items.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use workspace-wide vs. project-scoped listing and provides a concrete workflow tip: call the relevant list_* tool first to resolve UUID fields. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., search_work_items) or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a full 5.

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