azdo_query_work_items_by_wiql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'using WIQL' but doesn't disclose traits like read-only nature (implied by 'query'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the query returns. This is inadequate 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a query tool with 4 parameters. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage. This is minimal and inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining WIQL syntax or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 using WIQL' states the action (query) and resource (work items) with the method (WIQL), which is clear but basic. It distinguishes from siblings like 'azdo_get_work_items' by specifying WIQL, but lacks detail on scope or output. It's not tautological but remains vague on what the query entails beyond the name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'azdo_query_work_items' or 'azdo_get_work_items' is provided. The description implies usage for WIQL queries but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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