List Work Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. Description adds 'list' and mentions filters, but does not disclose pagination behavior or response format. Given annotations, description adds moderate value but not deeply. Score 3.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action 'List work items in a project'. Highly concise. Score 5.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, description explains core purpose and filter parameters but misses important context like pagination behavior (after, first) and project_id scope (optional but often required). Lacks details on return structure. Score 3: adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, but description partially compensates by naming filters: type, state, search, assignees, labels. However, it omits pagination parameters 'after' and 'first' and project context 'project_id'. So description adds some meaning but incomplete. Score 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists work items in a project and mentions types of filters. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_get_work_item (singular) and gitlab_list_issues (issues only), but does not explicitly differentiate. Score 4 because it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Description implies usage as a filtered list tool for work items, but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like gitlab_list_issues or gitlab_get_work_item. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. Score 3 for implied usage but no explicit guidance.

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