List My Work Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds context about the tool's scope ('current user's' personal queue) and the distinction from project-wide queries, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word earns its place. It is concise yet informative, with no redundant filler.

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 simple list tool with good annotations and a clear scope, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core action, audience, and usage context. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention pagination behavior or return structure, but these are not critical for a straightforward read-only list tool.

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?

The input schema already documents the 'action' enum and 'asset_key' description, giving 67% coverage. The description reinforces the notion of 'to-dos or completed items' which aligns with the 'action' parameter but adds no new details for 'page_num' or 'asset_key.' Since schema coverage is moderate and the description does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented 'page_num,' a baseline score 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's function: 'List the current user's Meegle to-dos or completed items.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('current user's Meegle to-dos or completed items'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting 'instead of project-wide query logic.'

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this for personal work queues' and contrasts it with 'project-wide query logic.' This provides clear guidance and implies a sibling alternative, making the usage context unambiguous.

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