search_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cross-project default, WIQL backend, almsearch behavior for text, and return fields (id + summary). It does not mention pagination or auth requirements, but covers essential behavioral traits for a read-only search operation.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with purpose and scope. No wasted words; technical backend detail is integrated efficiently.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers target resource, default scope, parameter usage, and return fields. It omits the default query when no `wiql` is provided (though schema covers this). With no annotations, it could marginally benefit from explicitly contrasting with get_work_item, but sibling context helps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions `text` and `project` usage but largely parallels the schema property descriptions. It adds marginal value by explaining the backend and org-wide default, but does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'Search/browse' with a clear resource 'work items' and scope 'ORG-WIDE (cross-project)'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_work_item (which retrieves a single item) and search_pull_requests (different resource type).

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?

Provides clear usage context: default is org-wide, use `project` to scope, and use `text` for full-text search. Implicitly differentiates from get_work_item by focusing on search/browse, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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