List Workstreams

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the return format (JSON array with status, progress, next action, blockers, timestamps) and error behavior (missing project or database failure). This adds valuable context not present in annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only', and every sentence adds distinct information: scope, return shape, alternative tool, and error behavior. No filler words.

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?

The description covers purpose, alternatives, return format, and errors, but the mismatch between stated parameter requirements and the schema creates a significant gap in how to correctly invoke the tool. For a simple two-parameter tool, this inconsistency prevents full completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description introduces contradictory requirement claims: it states project is required and status optional, while the schema requires status and makes project optional. This misinformation reduces the semantic value provided beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'workstreams', with explicit scoping by project and status. It distinguishes itself from update_workstream by stating it does not mutate data, making its purpose 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?

It explicitly directs users to update_workstream for mutations and states this tool does not create, update, or delete. It also mentions optional status filtering, giving clear context for when to use this tool.

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