Search work items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context not in the annotations: the response is compact summaries rather than full records. It still omits pagination/truncation behavior for a capped result set, but the return-shape disclosure is a real addition.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core capability front-loaded and the routing hint second. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it searches, the shape of the result, and where to go for detail. It does not mention result caps or how to page through matches, which is a minor gap given the top parameter and policy cap already exist in the schema.

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 every parameter (top, text, type, state, project, assignedTo) is already documented in the schema, including defaults and caps. The description only restates the filterable fields without adding format, syntax, or matching semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (work items) plus the filterable dimensions (type, state, assignee, title text). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_work_item by noting that this returns compact summaries while that tool returns full detail.

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?

Names the alternative (get_work_item) and the condition that selects it (need for full detail), which is clear routing guidance. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must exist, pagination behavior), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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