azure_query_work_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it adds no context: it doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, describe error behavior for invalid WIQL, mention rate limits, or explain what the return payload looks like. The statement merely restates the obvious action of running a query, providing essentially no transparency beyond the verb itself.

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 a clear subject-verb-object structure and zero filler words. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity means it forgoes the extra context that would elevate the overall tool documentation.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior and usage context, but it does neither — it doesn't state what the response contains, default fields, pagination via the limit parameter, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. The schema covers parameter semantics well, but the overall description is inadequate for an agent to confidently select and rely on this tool.

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% — every parameter (limit, query, fields, fetchDetails) has an inline description, including a WIQL example and the behavioral difference between fetchDetails=true and false. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so per the rubric the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource construction ('Executa uma query WIQL customizada sobre work items' — executes a custom WIQL query on work items), clearly indicating what the tool does. The word 'customizada' (custom) implicitly differentiates it from predefined-query siblings like azure_get_my_tasks and azure_get_critical_bugs, but it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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—it is a single sentence with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the 28 sibling tools including predefined query tools (azure_get_my_tasks, azure_get_critical_bugs) and azure_get_work_item, an agent receives no help choosing between them.

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