ai-list_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states default behavior (returns pending, sorted by priority), which is helpful. However, it doesn't clarify whether the operation is read-only, mention rate limits, or indicate any side effects beyond listing. Since listing is inherently safe, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences long, immediately front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second explains default behavior and use case. No filler or 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?

For a list tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the default state and purpose. It could be improved by briefly noting what the returned items contain (e.g., fields like id, status, priority), but given the lack of output schema, the current text is nearly sufficient.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already explains each parameter sufficiently. Thus, the 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 the tool lists AI work items, with default behavior (pending, sorted by priority). It explicitly says 'Use this to find work for AI agents to process,' which sets context and distinguishes from other AI work item tools like ai-get_work_item or ai-claim_work_item. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state what it does not do.

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 a clear usage context ('find work for AI agents to process'), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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