ado_grep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search scope and does not disclose result shape, default limits, filtering behavior, case-insensitivity, or whether snippets/context are returned.

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 or redundancy. However, the trailing 'etc.' is vague and slightly weakens the otherwise concise phrasing.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and several sibling tools to disambiguate from, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, default field behavior, filtering semantics, or how this tool relates to ado_search.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond echoing the 'fields' parameter and the regex concept; it does not compensate for or enhance the schema's parameter explanations.

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 performs regex pattern search across work item fields and names representative fields. It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ado_search.

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 tool should be used for regex-based searching within work item fields, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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