azdo_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 but adds minimal behavioral context. It implies a read operation ('query') but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no filters (e.g., returns all work items?). For a tool with 25 parameters and no 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place, making it structurally sound.

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 high complexity (25 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how filters combine (AND/OR logic). For a query tool with many options, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by filters', which is already implied by the parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with higher-level context like filter interactions.

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 'Query work items by filters' states the basic action (query) and resource (work items) but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify whether this returns all work items with optional filtering or only filtered subsets, nor how it differs from sibling tools like 'azdo_get_work_items' or 'azdo_query_work_items_by_wiql'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'azdo_get_work_items' (likely for fetching specific items) and 'azdo_query_work_items_by_wiql' (using WIQL queries), the description offers no context on use cases, prerequisites, or trade-offs. This leaves the agent guessing about tool selection.

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