workflow_item_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only list operation and discloses that project_dir defaults to the working directory, but it does not mention ordering, empty-result behavior, whether completed items are included, or how 'all' is scoped (project-level vs global). These are not severe gaps for a simple list tool, so it lands at a solid 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?

The core behavior is stated in one front-loaded sentence, followed by an economical Args list with no filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the optional filtering behavior immediately visible.

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?

For a low-complexity list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: what it lists, how to filter, and which directory it targets. The main omission is usage guidance relative to sibling workflow tools, but this does not prevent a competent agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. state_filter is explained with concrete examples ('ready', 'implementing'), and project_dir is given both meaning and a default. Every parameter receives semantics beyond its raw type/nullable 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all work items, optionally filtered by state.' It clearly identifies the operation and scope, which distinguishes it from mutation tools like workflow_item_add, workflow_transition, and workflow_item_waive. It stops one point short of 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from read-like siblings such as workflow_status or workflow_check.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you need to list work items, optionally narrowing by state. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for related queries such as overall workflow status or the next pending item. In a family of 18 workflow tools, this leaves some routing ambiguity.

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