query_work_items

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.