workstreams

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses return fields (progress, next action, blockers). However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it address potential edge cases like default status behavior or pagination.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds filters and output details. Every word contributes without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description explains what the tool returns (progress, next action, blockers) and defines workstreams as 'high-level tasks tracked across sessions.' It lacks an explicit read-only guarantee and any mention of pagination or sorting, but remains largely complete for this simple 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 description coverage is 100%, with both status and project parameters fully described in the schema. The description only repeats 'Filter by project and/or status', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List active workstreams' with an explanatory parenthetical, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling 'update_workstream', which is a mutation tool, by focusing on listing/reading.

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 provides clear context: it lists workstreams, supports filters, and shows progress/next action/blockers. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like 'search' or 'timeline', nor does it list exclusions. This is just short of an explicit usage guide.

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