my_work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that only open items are returned by default, that include_closed toggles finished items, and that the tool relies on inline assignee data from the list endpoint. However, it omits details like pagination, sorting, or potential rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information (purpose, default behavior, dependency). There is no redundant wording or fluff.

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 tool is a simple read-only list with three optional parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to be extensive. It covers the core purpose, scoping, default filtering, and a key flag. It falls short of fully explaining the format parameter and potential edge cases, but for its simplicity it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies include_closed ('set include_closed=true to see finished ones') and hints at project scoping via 'optionally scoped to one project', but it does not explain the format parameter or the exact type/meaning of project_id. Two of three parameters are partially addressed, but format remains unexplained.

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 'List work items assigned to the authenticated user (from /users/me)', with a specific verb and resource. It also names the use case ('what am I working on / standup view') and distinguishes it from broader list tools like list_work_items by emphasizing the personal scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—as a personal standup view scoped to the authenticated user, optionally filtered by project. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context strongly implies differentiation from other list tools.

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