ado_workitems_list_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are ordered by last changed date (newest first), which is not stated in the schema. It also implies a non-exhaustive, open-world result set. These are valuable additions, though it does not mention pagination or result shape—but with annotations and a simple listing purpose, a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and ordering behavior are front-loaded, and the usage distinction is given briefly. Every word earns its place.

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 a clear schema (all params documented) and annotations covering safety, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly—purpose, ordering behavior, and when to choose an alternative. No output schema is present, but the description doesn't need to explain return values for such a straightforward tool. The only minor gap is pagination, which the 'top' parameter already addresses in the schema.

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 every parameter (top, type, state, project, assignedTo) is already documented. The description only reiterates that filters are optional and lists type/state/assignee, which adds marginal context but no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('List'), the resource ('recently updated work items in a project'), and distinguishes itself from ado_workitems_query by contrasting 'quick overviews' with 'complex filtering'. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool does.

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 the agent when to use this tool ('quick overviews') and when to use an alternative ('use ado_workitems_query for complex filtering'). This direct routing to a sibling leaves no ambiguity and is more than sufficient.

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