Search Work Items

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting the tool is lightweight and always available and by naming the fields searched, but it does not explain matching semantics, result ordering, or access/rate behavior beyond that.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the routing to the alternative tool is stated immediately after.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and explicit sibling routing, the description is mostly complete for this simple search tool. It could add a little more about matching behavior, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that `search` applies to names, identifiers, and descriptions, which is meaningful beyond the schema's generic 'Text to look for' example.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search work items by text across names, identifiers and descriptions.' It also differentiates this tool from its advanced sibling, so an agent can tell which search tool to pick.

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 explicitly states this is the lightweight, always-available search and directly routes filter-based queries to `advanced_search_work_items`. This gives clear 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.