azuredevops_search_work_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('Returns a list of work items matching the query') and the hard project requirement, which is useful. It says nothing about read-only safety, permissions/scopes needed, or behavior on malformed WIQL, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The project prerequisite is placed after the core statement rather than first, but the ordering is still logical and readable.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return type, and the mandatory prerequisite, so an agent can call it correctly. Missing operational detail (auth scopes, WIQL error behavior) is the only shortfall.

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 all three parameters are already documented with examples and bounds (maxResults min/max/default). The description only restates the project requirement, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for Azure DevOps work items') plus the mechanism (WIQL), which clearly separates it from create_work_item or add_comment. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_work_item, but the query-language framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Project is required') and names an alternative route to satisfy it ('use azuredevops_list_projects'), which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs. No when-not-to-use condition is stated, so it falls short of 5.

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