Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchWorkItemsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It specifies the underlying WIQL CONTAINS operation and the return shape, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any error/empty-result behavior. It adds some useful detail beyond a bare purpose statement.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a compact return type note. Every word contributes value with no fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: what it searches, how it searches (WIQL CONTAINS), and what it returns. The output schema is absent but the return shape is explicitly given, making the description self-sufficient.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has one parameter ('query') with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the query is 'the given text' to search for in the title, which adds meaning beyond the raw parameter name. However, it doesn't add details like case sensitivity or wildcard support.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool searches work items by title text, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('work items'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on title-based search rather than listing projects or fetching a single work item.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies a search use case, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getWorkItem or listProjects. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when search is preferred.

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

• listProjectsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context about environment variable fallback (AZURE_COLLECTION_URL vs AZURE_BASE_URL), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose the return format, pagination, or any authentication requirements, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a configuration detail without waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and adds a useful configuration note. However, it does not explicitly describe what the response includes (e.g., project IDs, names), which would be expected when no output schema exists. It is nearly complete but lacks that minor detail, so a 4 is appropriate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding any unnecessary parameter details.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'team projects in the Azure DevOps collection,' which is specific and unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools (getWorkItem, searchWorkItems) that deal with work items, not projects.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to list team projects in the collection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that the intended usage is obvious. No misleading guidance is present.

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

• getWorkItemA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it details the exact response structure ('full fields map', 'relations', '_links', 'rev'), notes that only populated fields appear, and explicitly warns against expecting only basic fields. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the mere fact it 'gets' a work item.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second details the response contents, and the third clarifies scope. It is front-loaded and compact with no fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a one-parameter GET with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough: it names the endpoint, explains the included fields, and clarifies the absence of certain fields. It also differentiates from siblings, making it complete for its complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does by embedding 'id' in the API path, indicating it's the work item identifier. However, it doesn't elaborate on the type or constraints beyond the schema's integer and exclusiveMinimum, so it slightly over-delivers but leaves a little room for more.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the complete Azure DevOps work item JSON from GET /_apis/wit/workitems/{id}?$expand=all.' It clearly states the exact API endpoing and the scope of data returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like searchWorkItems by emphasizing it's not limited to a subset of fields.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage: use this when you need the full work item JSON for a known ID. The phrase 'This is NOT limited to id/title/state/assignedTo' suggests that if you only need those basic fields, other tools may suffice, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use. So it provides clear context without exclusions, fitting score 4.

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