clm_list_working_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds site-scoping and status-filter context, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default site fallback, or any other traits beyond what the schema already states.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, scope, and filter efficiently while leaving detailed parameter semantics to the schema.

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 description is mostly complete given the rich schema (100% coverage), output schema, and safety annotations. It lacks only explicit guidance about status value sources or related count/list alternatives, though those are partially covered by sibling names and schema references.

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 100%, so the structured schema already documents all five parameters. The description only mentions 'status' and 'site' in general terms and adds no meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present.

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 uses a specific verb 'List', names the resource ('lean cards (working packages)'), and adds scope ('for a site') and filter ('by status'). It clearly distinguishes the operation from counting or command-oriented siblings like clm_count_working_packages.

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 implies the use case — listing working packages filtered by status — but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as clm_count_working_packages or clm_list_enums. No exclusion or alternative-routing guidance is provided.

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