Azure DevOps MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear resource-action pairs, such as get_work_item, list_work_items, and query_work_items. However, some overlap exists, like get_sprint_work_items and get_iteration_work_items, which could cause confusion despite descriptive names. Overall, the set is well-differentiated with only minor ambiguities.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using verbs like get, list, search, set, and run. All names use snake_case uniformly, making them predictable and easy to parse. This consistency aids agent selection and reduces cognitive load.
Tool Count3/5
With 45 tools, the count is high and may feel heavy for the Azure DevOps domain, potentially overwhelming agents. While the tools cover many aspects, some could be consolidated or omitted without losing functionality. It's borderline excessive but still manageable given the comprehensive scope.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides extensive coverage for Azure DevOps, including work items, repositories, wikis, sprints, queries, and user management. It supports full CRUD-like operations (e.g., get, list, query, search) across all major resources, with no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows in this domain.
Average 3.3/5 across 45 of 45 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without any details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or return format. For a tool that likely queries a work item hierarchy, this omission is significant and leaves the agent unprepared for invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the minimal content it conveys, though its brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of work item hierarchies, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error cases, or how child work items are structured, making it inadequate for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'parentId' represents (e.g., a work item ID), its format, or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get child work items of a parent' restates the tool name 'get_child_work_items' without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('child work items') and target ('parent'), but lacks a clear verb beyond 'get' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item_parent' or 'get_work_items_by_ids'. This is a tautology that provides minimal additional insight.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_work_item_parent' (which retrieves a parent of a work item) and 'get_work_items_by_ids' (which retrieves multiple work items by ID), the description offers no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only list operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the key information. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the resource (e.g., what area paths are), usage scenarios, or output expectations, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could slightly enhance value by noting the lack of filters (e.g., 'without any filters'). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List area paths' clearly states the action (list) and resource (area paths), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_iterations' or 'get_teams' that also list resources, and it's somewhat vague about what 'area paths' specifically are in this context.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_project', 'list_work_items', and 'get_iterations' that might relate to area paths, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool 'Get details' but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or behavioral aspects like rate limits. For a tool that retrieves specific data, more context is needed to guide effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'repositoryId' documented as 'Repository ID or name'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on valid IDs. Since the schema provides adequate parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details of a specific repository' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('repository'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_repositories' by specifying retrieval of a single repository rather than listing multiple. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' entail, such as metadata or content, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a repository ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_repositories' for bulk retrieval or 'search_code' for content-based queries. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or provides error handling. The description mentions what data is returned ('hours per day, days off') but doesn't describe the return format or structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise - a single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes specific details about what capacity data is retrieved. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what data is retrieved but not the return format. With no annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation and may have authentication requirements. The description is minimally viable but could provide more context about the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how 'team' interacts with 'iterationId' or provide examples of valid values. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get team member capacity for a sprint' with specific details about what capacity includes ('hours per day, days off'). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team member capacity'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_current_sprint' or 'get_sprint_work_items' which might provide related sprint information.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_sprint_board' or 'get_iteration_work_items' that might provide overlapping or complementary sprint data. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions for using this capacity tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it 'Get[s] all work items' but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns a list of work items, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination. For a read operation with multiple sibling tools, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (iterationId and team). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying sprint/iteration filtering, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'all work items in a specific sprint iteration', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_iteration_work_items' or 'list_work_items', but the sprint-specific focus is implied. This is better than vague but lacks explicit sibling distinction for a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_iteration_work_items' or 'list_work_items'. It mentions a 'specific sprint iteration' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states a read operation ('List'), implying it is likely non-destructive, but does not cover aspects like permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included), behavioral constraints, or error handling. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'teamId' documented as 'Team name or ID'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the tool lists members for a given team. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides minimal extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all members of a specific team'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_teams' or 'get_user_profile', which could be related but serve different functions, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_teams' (which might list teams) or 'get_user_profile' (which might retrieve individual user details). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets details' without specifying what details are returned (e.g., metadata, content, permissions), whether it's a read-only operation, or any error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with unknown output.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently stating the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves 'details'—it doesn't explain what details are returned or the tool's behavior. For a retrieval tool in a context-rich server with many siblings, more context on output and usage would be needed for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'wikiIdentifier', so the description adds no additional parameter information. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the single required parameter without needing extra details from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific wiki', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_wikis' (which lists wikis) or 'get_wiki_page' (which gets wiki pages), missing explicit differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for retrieving metadata after listing wikis or how it differs from 'get_wiki_page' for content access, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'lists all attachments' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if it includes deleted attachments). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a data system.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all attachments on a work item') and adds clarifying detail ('files, images, documents') without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, attachment metadata), behavioral constraints, or error cases. For a tool with one parameter but potentially complex return data, this lacks sufficient context for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with workItemId clearly documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool operates on a work item, which is already evident from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all attachments') and resource ('on a work item'), specifying the types of attachments (files, images, documents). It distinguishes from siblings like get_work_item_comments or get_work_item_updates by focusing on attachments, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other attachment-related tools (none exist in the sibling list).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools might be more appropriate, such as using get_work_item for general work item details or get_work_item_updates for attachment history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('dashboard names and IDs') but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like pagination, sorting, default team handling, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently specifies the return data, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return structure (beyond names/IDs), error handling, team defaults, or how it fits into the broader toolset. For a listing operation in a complex environment, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'team' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying team dashboards are listed. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('team dashboards'), and specifies the return data ('dashboard names and IDs'). It distinguishes this as a listing operation rather than a retrieval of specific dashboards, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like 'list_wikis' or 'list_repositories'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_teams', 'list_wikis'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, team selection logic, or comparisons to other listing operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, how results are formatted, or any rate limits—critical gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's function, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, pagination, error handling, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps in understanding its full behavior and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the 'top' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not enhancing understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('saved work item queries in the project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_saved_query' or 'query_work_items', which would require more specificity for a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_saved_query' or 'query_work_items'. The description only states what it does, without context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool lists work items with filters, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination (e.g., the 'top' parameter's default of 50), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or return format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence: 'List work items by type (Epic, Feature, User Story, Task, Bug) with filters.' It is front-loaded with the core action and includes key details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), output format, and usage context compared to siblings. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (e.g., 'type' as 'Work item type,' 'top' with default 50). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by type...with filters,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List work items by type (Epic, Feature, User Story, Task, Bug) with filters.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('work items'), and scope ('by type...with filters'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_items_by_ids' or 'query_work_items,' which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering but doesn't compare to sibling tools like 'search_work_items' or 'query_work_items,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't clarify what 'configuration' entails, whether it requires authentication, if it's cached, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns critical setup information.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely importance for configuration context and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes (e.g., settings, URLs, permissions) or the return structure, leaving the agent with critical unknowns for a foundational tool.
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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools. No additional parameter context is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('current Azure DevOps organization and project configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_project' or 'get_current_user', but the specificity of 'configuration' helps distinguish it as a metadata retrieval tool rather than a data retrieval one.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project' or 'get_current_user'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List iterations/sprints' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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, efficient phrase ('List iterations/sprints') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing iterations/sprints likely involves multiple items), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'iterations/sprints' entails (e.g., metadata included), how results are structured, or any constraints. For a read operation with no structured support, more context is needed.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is assigned since the schema fully covers parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List iterations/sprints' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('iterations/sprints'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_current_sprint' (singular) and 'get_sprint_work_items' (work items within sprints). However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all iterations vs. current project), which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., project-specific), or compare to siblings like 'get_current_sprint' for a single sprint or 'list_work_items' for broader queries. Without usage instructions, the agent must infer context from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'current' means in terms of time sensitivity. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with every part contributing directly to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but leaves gaps. It explains what is retrieved but not the format or structure of the returned board data, which could be important for an agent to process results effectively. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'team' documented as optional with a default. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying team naming conventions or how the default is determined. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current sprint/iteration board with all work items assigned to it'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_current_sprint' or 'get_sprint_work_items', which could cause confusion about scope or output format.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_current_sprint' and 'get_sprint_work_items' available, the description lacks context on whether this tool provides a more comprehensive view or different data structure, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'content' includes (e.g., HTML, metadata). This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get content of a wiki page by path'). It uses minimal words with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral context, which are needed for a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (wikiIdentifier, path, recursionLevel). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'path' is used to retrieve content, matching the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('content of a wiki page'), specifying it retrieves content by path. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wiki_page_text' (which might return only text) and 'get_wiki_page_revisions' (which retrieves history), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_wiki_pages' (which lists pages without content).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_wiki_page_text' or 'list_wiki_pages' is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving page content, but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Get') but does not cover critical aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'top' parameter but not explained), error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., auth, errors) and output format, which are important for a read operation with multiple parameters. However, the schema provides good parameter documentation, making it adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (workItemId, top, order) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of 'all comments/discussion history,' which aligns with the schema but provides no extra value. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all comments/discussion history for a work item'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item_updates' (which might include comments) or 'get_work_item' (which might include comment summaries), leaving room for minor ambiguity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing work item access), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_work_item_updates' or 'get_work_item', leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions what information is returned (fields, states, icon) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a work item type') and specifies key details ('including its fields, states, and icon'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return content but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and usage guidance relative to siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on behavior and output format would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workItemType' clearly documented as the work item type name (e.g., 'Bug', 'Task', 'User Story'). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid types or where to find them. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a work item type', specifying what information is included (fields, states, and icon). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_work_item' (which gets a specific work item) and 'get_work_item_types' (which likely lists types), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_work_item_type_states' (which might overlap).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it over 'get_work_item_types' (for listing types) or 'get_work_item_type_states' (for states only), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a specific project context. Usage is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('List') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.
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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available work item types' means in context (e.g., project-specific, all types), the return structure, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning well with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available work item types'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item_type' (singular) or 'list_work_item_fields', leaving room for confusion about scope.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_work_item_type' (singular) and 'list_work_items', the description doesn't clarify if this is for metadata listing, filtering, or other contexts, offering no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention permissions required, pagination, rate limits, or what format the list returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all security groups') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or output format, which are important for a listing tool in a security context, making it incomplete for practical use.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('security groups defined in the current project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_work_items' or 'list_repositories', but the specificity of 'security groups' provides inherent differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project context), exclusions, or how it relates to similar listing tools like 'list_work_items' or 'list_tags' among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool lists repositories but omits critical details like whether it returns all repositories at once, supports pagination, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., repository names, IDs, URLs) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent properly.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. It implies no filtering or options, aligning with the schema, earning a baseline score of 4 for matching the schema's simplicity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all Git repositories in the project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_repository' or 'search_code', which might also retrieve repository information but with different scopes or filters.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it lists only accessible repositories or requires specific permissions. With many sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output is a 'table of contents', which hints at a structured list, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a clarifying parenthetical, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It covers the basic purpose but omits behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) and output details. However, the high schema coverage for inputs and the clear purpose prevent it from scoring lower, as it meets the minimum viable threshold for a read-oriented tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'wikiIdentifier' format or clarifying the 'recursionLevel' options. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all pages in a wiki'), with the parenthetical '(table of contents)' providing additional context about the output structure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wiki_page' or 'list_wikis', which reduces it from a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_wiki_page' (for single pages) or 'list_wikis' (for listing wikis themselves), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool returns 'matching files with line context,' which gives some output behavior, but lacks critical details like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), pagination handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and output. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and the output format but misses behavioral details (e.g., performance, limits) and usage context. With no output schema, it should ideally describe return structure more, but the 'line context' hint provides some value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters (searchText, top, repository, branch). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify regex syntax, default values beyond 'top', or interactions between parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for code across all repositories in the project. Returns matching files with line context.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('code'), scope ('across all repositories'), and output format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_work_items' or 'list_repositories', which would be needed for a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_work_items' (for non-code searches) or 'list_repositories' (for repository listings), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, returns structured or unstructured data, has rate limits, or what 'current' means contextually (e.g., based on user session or default project). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the obvious read operation.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple read operation. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the return format, or how 'current' is determined. While annotations are absent, the description should compensate more for behavioral transparency given the tool's potential complexity in a project management context.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline is 4 when no parameters exist and schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get current project details' clearly states the action (get) and resource (current project details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_project' (write vs read) and 'list_project_groups' (single vs multiple), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'get_current_config' or 'get_current_sprint'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or differentiate from siblings like 'get_current_config' or 'get_current_sprint' that might provide overlapping information. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope limitations). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral constraints, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned implicit parameters like project context. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all work item tags in the project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_work_items' or 'list_work_item_fields', but the resource specificity ('tags') provides implicit distinction, falling short of a perfect 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when tags are needed versus other metadata like fields or work items. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of function without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action 'List all wikis' but does not describe behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It states what the tool does but does not provide context on behavior, output format, or usage scenarios. For a simple list tool, this might be acceptable, but more detail would improve agent understanding.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description does not add any parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it does not need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 'all wikis in the project', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wiki' (which likely retrieves a single wiki) or 'list_wiki_pages' (which lists pages within a wiki), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it requires project permissions or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_wiki' or 'list_wiki_pages'. This lack of usage instructions could lead to confusion in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'sprint name, dates, and path', which adds useful context about output format. However, it does not mention behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if no active sprint exists), or if it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Get the current active sprint/iteration for a team'), followed by output details in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and output format, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or full behavioral context. It's adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive for an agent to handle edge cases confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'team' parameter well. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'default project team' means or provide examples). Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current active sprint/iteration for a team' with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current active sprint/iteration'), and it distinguishes the resource from siblings like 'get_iterations' (which likely lists all sprints) or 'get_sprint_work_items' (which focuses on work items). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_sprint_board' or 'get_sprint_capacity', which might also relate to current sprints, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'for a team', which provides some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_iterations' (which might return all sprints) or 'get_sprint_work_items' (which might return items for a specific sprint). No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists teams but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how it handles errors, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
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 with zero waste: it states the purpose and provides a usage hint. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity is low (0 parameters) but no annotations or output schema exist, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like return values, error handling, or prerequisites, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly in a real-world context.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 as it does not need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all teams in the current project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_team_members' or 'get_current_sprint', which could also relate to teams, so it misses full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'Use team names with get_sprint_board,' which suggests a context for when to use the output, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_team_members' or 'list_project_groups.' No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination (implied by 'top' parameter but not explained), error conditions, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in revision history retrieval.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. Every part ('Get the revision/edit history', 'who changed it and when') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the 'what' but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, return structure) that would help an agent use it correctly, especially given the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'top' controls result volume. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('revision/edit history of a wiki page'), with specific details about what information is retrieved ('who changed it and when'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wiki_page' (which likely gets current content) and 'list_wiki_pages' (which lists pages), but doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when historical edit information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_wiki_page' for current content) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks specific when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'all fields and relations', which hints at comprehensive data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation without annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a single work item by ID') and adds necessary qualifiers ('with all fields and relations'). There is no wasted wording, and it's structured for immediate comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally provide more context on the return format or behavioral traits to compensate, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'expand'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'expand' parameter might control the 'all fields and relations' aspect, but this is already covered by the schema's enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('a single work item'), and key qualifiers ('by ID', 'with all fields and relations'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_items_by_ids' (multiple items) and 'list_work_items' (list without full details), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving detailed information about a specific work item when its ID is known, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_work_items_by_ids' for multiple items or 'list_work_items' for summaries. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists states but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted (e.g., list, array), pagination, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: a single sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief utility note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple lookup tool. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list of state names/IDs), permissions, or error cases, which could be helpful for an agent. Without annotations, more behavioral context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'workItemType' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no format details, validation rules, or examples beyond those already provided). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all workflow states for a given work item type' with specific examples (Bug, Task, User Story). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_item_type' (which likely returns type metadata) and 'get_work_item' (which returns individual items), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_work_item_types' (which lists types rather than states).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: 'Useful to know valid state transitions' suggests it's for understanding workflow progression. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_work_item' (which might include current state) or 'get_work_item_updates' (which might show state history). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Execute a WIQL query' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid queries. The example shows syntax but lacks operational context, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise with two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a specific example. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and provides an example, but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return format. For a query execution tool with no structured safety or output information, it should do more to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'top'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example query string, but doesn't explain WIQL semantics, query construction rules, or how 'top' interacts with query syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a WIQL query' with a specific example showing what WIQL is (Work Item Query Language). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_work_items' or 'search_work_items' by emphasizing custom query execution rather than predefined listing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'run_saved_query' which might be a closer alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the example (e.g., querying for active bugs), suggesting it's for custom queries when predefined tools aren't sufficient. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_work_items' or 'run_saved_query', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is contextual but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions execution and returning results, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool that executes queries and returns work items, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and result, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple execution tool with one parameter. However, it doesn't address important context like what format the work items are returned in, whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance considerations. The schema covers the parameter well, but overall completeness is limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'queryId' with its description. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('execute') and resource ('saved work item query'), and specifies the outcome ('return the matching work items'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_saved_queries' (which lists queries) and 'query_work_items' (which runs ad-hoc queries), but could be more explicit about this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a saved query ID and want to execute it, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'query_work_items' for ad-hoc queries or 'list_work_items' for unfiltered lists. The input schema hints at getting the queryId from 'list_saved_queries', providing some contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves identity information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific data is returned (e.g., user ID, name, email). The examples hint at use cases but don't clarify operational behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the current authenticated user identity') and follows with practical examples. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and provides usage examples, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., what user identity fields are included) and behavioral constraints. For a basic read tool, it's minimally viable but could be more informative.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing inputs. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current authenticated user identity' specifies the verb (get) and resource (user identity). It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_profile by focusing on the authenticated context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The examples (voting on PRs, assigning work items) add practical context but don't fully differentiate from all siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the examples ('useful for knowing your user ID for voting on PRs, assigning work items, etc.'), suggesting when this tool might be helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_user_profile or get_my_role, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists field names and reference names, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a practical use case. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's utility. It is appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and why it's useful, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or response structure. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, the description should provide more complete context to guide the agent effectively.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the output semantics (field names and reference names for custom queries), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. This provides useful context beyond the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('work item field names and their reference names'), with a specific purpose for custom queries. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_item' or 'list_work_items' by focusing on metadata rather than actual work items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'get_work_item_type' or 'get_work_item_types', which might also provide field-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('useful for custom queries'), suggesting when this tool might be beneficial. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'get_work_item_type' for field details or 'query_work_items' for actual queries), and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions. The implied context is helpful but incomplete for optimal agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (null if no parent), which is useful, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return behavior. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose and return behavior, but lacks context on permissions, errors, or integration with sibling tools, which could help an agent use it more effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'workItemId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('Get the parent work item') and resource ('of a given work item'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_child_work_items' by focusing on parent retrieval rather than children. It also specifies the return behavior for edge cases ('Returns null if the work item has no parent').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to find a work item's parent, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_work_item' (which might return parent info) or 'get_child_work_items' (for opposite direction). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'full change history' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the work item does not exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the full change history of a work item') and adds clarifying detail ('who changed what and when') without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error handling) and does not compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (workItemId and top). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of history entries or default behavior for 'top'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('full change history of a work item'), specifying what data is retrieved (who changed what and when). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_item' (single state) or 'get_work_item_comments' (comments only) by focusing on historical changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving change history, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_work_item' (for current state) or 'search_work_items' (for filtering). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Switch to' implies a state change operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, whether the change is persistent across sessions, what happens to ongoing work, or what the expected response looks like. For a tool that changes context with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter (100% schema coverage) but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the purpose and gives a prerequisite, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like what 'switching' entails operationally, what permissions are required, or what happens after the switch. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally mention what to expect as a result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'project' parameter with its type and purpose. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format requirements, validation rules, or examples of valid project names. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Switch to') and resource ('a different project within the current organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_project', but the verb 'Switch to' implies a state change operation rather than a retrieval, which provides some distinction.
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 contextual guidance by stating 'Use list_projects first to see available projects', which gives a prerequisite action. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool is 'faster' for sprint planning, which adds some context, but it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination, structure). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key advantage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, performance), does not explain return values or error handling, and relies solely on the schema for parameter documentation. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or default behaviors). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps, as there are none in the schema.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('work items for a specific iteration/sprint path'), and it explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'query_work_items' by noting it's 'faster for sprint planning.' This provides clear differentiation from alternatives.
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 this tool ('faster than query_work_items for sprint planning'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other potential alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'get_sprint_work_items' or 'list_work_items,' leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool retrieves profile information but does not specify what data is included, whether it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled. This leaves gaps for a read operation with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on return format, error cases, or authentication needs, which could be important for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the userId parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but does not contradict it either.
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 action ('Get profile information'), target resource ('Azure DevOps user'), and method ('by their user ID or "me" for the authenticated user'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_current_user by specifying it can fetch profiles for any user ID, not just the current user.
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 on when to use this tool (to get profile information for a specific user ID or the authenticated user). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_current_user for comparison, though the distinction is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 describes what the tool does but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or response format (e.g., whether it returns plain text, markdown, or structured data). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the raw markdown/text content of a wiki page') and adds clarifying scope ('without metadata') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read-only tool but lacks completeness. It explains what the tool does but omits behavioral details (e.g., permissions, errors) and output specifics, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('wikiIdentifier' and 'path') with descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of 'wikiIdentifier' or typical 'path' values, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.
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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('raw markdown/text content of a wiki page'), and scope ('without metadata'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_wiki_page' (which likely includes metadata) and 'list_wiki_pages' (which lists pages rather than fetching content).
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 context by specifying 'raw markdown/text content' and 'without metadata', suggesting it's for extracting content only. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_wiki_page' or 'get_wiki_page_revisions', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions the search scope and comparison to WIQL, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are sorted, or if there are rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what the tool does, and the second provides important usage guidance. There's zero wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search functionality with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks behavioral details and output information. For a search tool without annotations or output schema, more context about result format or limitations would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax, ranking, or field weighting). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('work items'), specifying the search scope ('across title, description and comments') and distinguishing it from alternatives ('Easier than WIQL for natural language queries'). This provides a precise purpose that differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_work_items' or 'query_work_items'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance by stating when to use this tool ('Easier than WIQL for natural language queries'), which implicitly suggests it's preferred over WIQL-based tools like 'query_work_items' for text-based searches. This gives clear context for choosing this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions efficiency but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. While it adds some context about batch operations, significant behavioral details remain undocumented.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial comparative guidance. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks behavioral context about response format, error conditions, or system constraints. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps that could affect agent performance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain ID formats, field options, or expand implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('Fetch multiple work items by their IDs') and resource ('work items'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_work_item' (singular) and 'list_work_items' (general listing). It explicitly mentions efficiency compared to repeated calls, which adds valuable differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('more efficient than calling get_work_item repeatedly'), directly comparing it to an alternative sibling tool. This gives clear context for choosing between batch fetching and individual retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It discloses behavioral traits such as returning detected role, source, and access level, which adds context beyond a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on potential errors, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are important for a tool that might involve server-specific role detection.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get your current role') and efficiently adds details about what is shown. Every part earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for its purpose. It explains what the tool returns (role, source, access level), which addresses the lack of output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any prerequisites or error conditions, given the complexity of role detection in an MCP server context.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate, and it adds value by explaining what information is returned (role, source, access level), compensating for the lack of output schema.
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 'Get' and the resource 'your current role', specifying it retrieves role information including detected role, source (Azure DevOps groups or env var), and access level. It distinguishes from siblings like get_current_user (which likely returns user identity) and get_current_user_permissions (which likely returns specific permissions rather than role metadata).
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 context by stating 'your current role in this MCP server', suggesting it should be used when role information is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_current_user_permissions or provide exclusions, though the specificity of 'role' helps differentiate it from other user-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It discloses that the tool returns permission levels and group memberships, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none provided).
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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and return values, while the second provides usage guidance. Every element adds value, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format (e.g., structured object vs. simple string).
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 specific action ('Get the permission level and group memberships'), identifies the target resource ('currently authenticated user'), and specifies the return values ('org admin, project admin, contributor, or reader'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_current_user' by focusing on permissions rather than general user information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Useful to understand what operations are allowed before attempting them.' This provides clear guidance on its purpose as a pre-check for permission-sensitive operations, distinguishing it from alternatives like 'get_current_user' or 'get_my_role' (if present).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('List') but doesn't specify behavioral details like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or has rate limits. The description adds value by mentioning the output's use case but lacks operational context.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all available work item relation/link types') and follows with practical guidance, making every word earn its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use its output. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning expected return format or any prerequisites.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage context.
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 specific action ('List all available') and resource ('work item relation/link types'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_work_items' or 'list_work_item_fields'. It explicitly mentions the purpose is to obtain values for use with 'link_work_items', providing clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'use these values with link_work_items'. This provides clear guidance on its intended application context and distinguishes it from alternative tools that might list other types of work item data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-azure-devops MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/allanbrunobr/mcp-azure-devops/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/allanbrunobr/mcp-azure-devops)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-azure-devops MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/allanbrunobr/mcp-azure-devops/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/allanbrunobr/mcp-azure-devops)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/allanbrunobr/mcp-azure-devops'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server