wit_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Leitura' is a useful read-only signal. It does not, however, mention output shape, pagination behavior, project allowlist requirements, or any other runtime behavior beyond read-only.

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

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

The description is a single compact sentence plus the two-word safety qualifier 'Leitura.' It is front-loaded and every word contributes useful information.

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?

The description gives enough to understand the tool's core purpose and read-only nature, and the schema covers parameters. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without guidance on return defaults, pagination, or project restrictions when selecting parameters.

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 71%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description groups wiql, preset, and queryId into three mutually exclusive query modes, which adds a little semantic structure, but it adds no detail for top, expand, fields, or project.

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 uses the specific verb 'Busca' (searches) with the resource 'work items' and lists three concrete query mechanisms (WIQL, preset, saved query). 'Leitura' clarifies this is a read operation, but no sibling tool is named, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 intended use is implied: it is for searching work items through WIQL, presets, or saved queries. However, the description never says when to prefer this over wit_get, wit_tree, or other sibling tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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