Get saved query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Read' phrasing is consistent with those. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the output fields and the folder behavior, including that children are listed at depth 1. It does not go into error behavior, but the safety profile is already covered.

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, information-dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core operation and lookup method, then adds return-value details and the folder edge case in a logical order.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns, including name, path, type, columns, WIQL text, and folder children behavior. Combined with 100% parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 schema fully documents queryId and project. The description adds a helpful path example ('Shared Queries/Team/Open Bugs') but does not materially expand on the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 action ('Read'), the resource ('a saved work item query'), and the lookup mechanism (GUID or path). It also lists the returned fields, which helps distinguish this tool from sibling tools like run_query and run_wiql that execute queries rather than retrieve their definitions.

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 is for reading saved query definitions rather than executing them, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over run_query or run_wiql. The path example gives useful context, but the 'when vs. alternatives' guidance is left to inference.

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