MCP Azure DevOps 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 key behaviors: it's a search/query operation (implied read-only), mentions WIQL syntax rules, specifies a default result limit ('top' defaults to 30), and outlines the return format ('formatted string... as markdown'). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers core operational aspects well.

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 with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, important notes, args, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It's slightly verbose but every sentence adds value (e.g., WIQL syntax explanation, return format details). No wasted text, though it could be more 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a strong job: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. It misses some contextual details like authentication needs or error cases, but for a query tool with two parameters, it's largely complete and actionable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining both parameters: 'query' is described with syntax examples and context ('WIQL query string'), and 'top' is clarified as 'Maximum number of results to return (default: 30)'. This adds significant meaning 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: 'Searches for work items using Work Item Query Language (WIQL).' It specifies the verb ('searches'), resource ('work items'), and method ('using WIQL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_work_item' (single item retrieval) or 'get_work_item_comments' (comment-specific).

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 scenarios in a bulleted list: 'Find work items matching specific criteria,' 'Search across projects for related tasks or bugs,' etc. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on query-based search rather than direct retrieval or updates, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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