azure_get_my_tasks

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 indicates a read operation ('Busca') but does not disclose return format, pagination, default filtering behavior, or the meaning of '(helper)'. Without annotations, this is insufficient for understanding side effects or limitations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient, though the inclusion of '(helper)' is ambiguous and could be clarified. Overall, it is well-structured and free of redundant information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an input schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It lacks information about return values (no output schema), parameter interactions, and the meaning of 'current user' in a multi-tenant context. However, for a basic read operation, it provides adequate initial understanding.

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 description does not mention any parameters. With schema coverage at 67% (state and includeCompleted have descriptions, but limit does not), the description adds nothing to clarify parameter usage or the effect of 'limit'. It fails to compensate for the missing 'limit' description.

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 uses the verb 'Busca' (searches) with a specific resource ('tasks atribuídas ao usuário atual') and clear scope (current user). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like azure_get_work_item or azure_query_work_items, which target different scopes or queries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as azure_query_work_items or azure_get_work_item. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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