azdo_query_work_items_by_wiql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. The description is too minimal: it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, permissions needed, rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations and no behavioral context, the agent is left uninformed about important operational characteristics.

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 very short (one sentence, five words). While concise, it sacrifices valuable context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but every sentence should earn its place; here, the single sentence lacks sufficient detail for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. Conciseness alone is not enough.

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 the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination, or common WIQL examples. The description is too brief to be considered complete for an agent to understand behavior and outcomes, especially when compared to sibling tools that may have richer descriptions.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it only says 'using WIQL', which is already exemplified in the query parameter description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema does most of the work.

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' clearly specifies the action (query) and resource (work items) and the specific method (WIQL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like azdo_query_work_items which likely uses non-WIQL queries, so purpose is clear and distinct.

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. The name implies it's for custom WIQL queries, but there's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with other query tools. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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