ado_workitems_query

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the returned fields (ID, title, state, type, assignee) and a WIQL example. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but read-only safety is covered by the annotation and the description is consistent with it.

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?

Measured in three sentences: purpose, example, and return + alternative. Every part earns its place; the example is concrete and the alternative routing is concise. No verbiage.

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 read-only query tool whose schema covers all parameters, the description is complete: it states the action, gives a full example, lists the return fields, and routes to the appropriate sibling. There is nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly that is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters (query, top, project) are documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a full WIQL example for the query parameter and indicating the returned fields, which helps the agent form correct queries.

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 specifies the action: 'Run a WIQL query against Azure DevOps and return matching work items.' It provides a concrete example and distinguishes itself from the sibling ado_workitems_get by explicitly directing users there for full details on a specific item.

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 gives explicit guidance for when this tool is not appropriate: 'Use ado_workitems_get for full details on a specific item.' This establishes a clear boundary, though it does not mention other alternatives like ado_workitems_list_recent or when one would prefer this over those tools.

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