list_work_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that filtering is done server-side, that filters combine with AND logic, that results are paginated, and that text performs a free-text match. It doesn't specify output format details or error/ordering behavior, but it reveals the core behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by compact parameter and usage details. No fluff; every clause adds informational value.

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?

With 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: filter semantics, pagination, and an alternative tool. It lacks return structure and ordering, but those gaps are partially mitigated by the absence of an output schema and the typical nature of a list operation. Overall, it is complete for practical usage.

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 only 7% (only the format parameter has a description). The description compensates by naming all filter parameters and adding meaning: AND-combination, status enum values, text free-text match, and pagination. While each filter isn't individually expanded, the description provides significant semantic context for the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List/search a project's work items,' and immediately clarifies the server-side filtering capability. It explicitly differentiates from sibling find_work_items by recommending it for 'forgiving name-based search,' which makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 states all filters are optional and AND-combined, enumerates them, explains the status enum values, notes pagination via limit/offset, and gives a clear alternative tool for a use case. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with exclusions.

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