Azure DevOps CLI 說明查詢

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the tool behaves identically to `az <command> --help` (a read-only help lookup), which is the key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe what happens on invalid commands, output format, or whether it requires authentication — but given the tool's simplicity (a help query), this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Description is compact — three sentences that each earn their place: what it does (equivalence to --help), when to use it (before az_devops), and a concrete example. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 help-query tool with one documented parameter at 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role relative to the sibling executor (az_devops), shows usage, and clarifies parameter format. No output schema exists, but since the tool mirrors `az --help` behavior, the return value is self-explanatory.

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% — the single 'command' parameter is already well documented ('命令群組或子命令，不含 az 前綴'). The description adds valuable context beyond the schema by giving a concrete example ('boards work-item update') and explaining the input format expectation, which reinforces the no-'az'-prefix rule. This compensates nicely for the single parameter.

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 queries official Azure DevOps CLI help (equivalent to `az <command> --help`), with a specific verb (查詢/query), resource (Azure DevOps CLI 命令說明), and a concrete example showing command usage like 'boards work-item update' returning full parameter documentation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling az_devops executor.

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?

Description explicitly states '在不確定子命令或參數語法時先用這個工具，再用 az_devops 執行' — use this tool first when unsure about subcommand or parameter syntax, then execute with az_devops. This is a clear when-to-use directive that names the alternative (az_devops), and shows a working example.

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