search_work_items

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description complements by confirming read-only search behavior, listing matched fields, and indicating return type (WorkItemSearch object). No contradictions.

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 well-structured: starts with purpose and guidelines, then parameter descriptions. All sentences add value; no fluff or repetition.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, description covers search scope, parameter semantics, and return type. No gaps remain for an intelligent agent to misinterpret.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed explanations for all 6 parameters, including 'query' (matched fields), 'expand', 'fields', 'external_id', 'external_source', and 'order_by'. Adds clear meaning beyond JSON schema.

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 clearly states it searches work items by text across a workspace, matching on name, sequence id, and project identifier. Explicitly distinguishes from 'list_work_items' for structured filtering, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for free-text search; for structured filtering (priority, state, assignee, dates, etc.) use 'list_work_items' with PQL. Also specifies matched fields, helping agent decide when to invoke.

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