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. It describes what the tool returns ('complete work item details including description, acceptance criteria, parent/child links, and all metadata fields') but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. It provides some behavioral context but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines section, parameter explanations, and return value description. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no wasted words, and information is logically organized and front-loaded.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 2 parameters with good description coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, and what to expect in return. The main gap is lack of operational context like authentication or error handling.

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 compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'work_item_id: The numeric work item ID (e.g. 12345)' and 'project: Project name (default from config).' It provides concrete examples and default behavior, adding significant value beyond the bare schema which only shows types and requirements.

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 explicitly states 'Get full details of a single work item' with specific resource types listed (PBI, Task, Bug, Feature, Epic). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on retrieving complete details for a single item by ID, unlike tools like get_backlog or get_sprint_work_items which handle collections.

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 guidance with 'USE THIS TOOL when the user asks about a specific work item by ID, wants the description, acceptance criteria, history, or full details.' This gives clear conditions for when to use this tool versus alternatives, addressing the specific use case scenarios.

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