wit_tree

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 explicitly states 'Leitura' (read-only), which is the key behavioral trait for this tool, and it describes the returned object as a tree. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a simple read-only query tool the disclosure is adequate.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, states the return shape, and closes with the read-only note. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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

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

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives the purpose, return shape, and read-only behavior. It leaves exact output formatting to inference, but the core information needed to select and call the tool is present.

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 50%, and the description adds useful meaning for 'wiql' by emphasizing hierarchy and the epic → feature → item result. However, it does not compensate for 'top' or 'fields', whose semantics are only implied by their names and schema types.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Executa WIQL de hierarquia (FROM WorkItemLinks)' and names the exact return shape, 'árvore epic → feature → item'. This clearly distinguishes wit_tree from siblings like wit_query, which would handle flat WIQL executions.

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 makes the usage context explicit: this tool is for hierarchical WIQL queries over WorkItemLinks and returns a tree. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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