searchWorkItems

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.