Ops MCP Server

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. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns grouped items with specific fields (type, title, state, assigned person, effort/story points), shows grouping logic (by type with totals), and explains default behavior for omitted parameters. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides substantial operational context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and return behavior. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose statement, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, return format, and alternative tool reference. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, what information is returned, and how it relates to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it appropriately focuses on operational guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all three parameters. It explains what 'iteration_path' represents with an example, clarifies that it defaults to current sprint when omitted, and explains default behavior for 'project' and 'team' parameters. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get all work items') and resources ('in a sprint with full details'), explicitly listing the item types (PBIs, Tasks, Bugs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_work_item_details' by indicating this is for aggregated sprint content rather than individual item details.

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 explicit usage guidance with a dedicated 'USE THIS TOOL when' section listing specific user query patterns ('what's in the sprint?', 'sprint board', etc.). It also clearly distinguishes from the alternative 'get_work_item_details' tool for individual item details, providing complete when-to-use and 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.