ado_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses markdown support and per-action required parameters, but stops short of describing side effects, permissions, return values, or error behavior. It adds some context beyond the schema, but not complete safety/behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a bullet list of actions, and a note on markdown. No fluff.

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 two-action tool, the description covers the actions and required inputs. However, it lacks details on list behavior (ordering, pagination), response format, and any error or authorization context. Without an output schema, more explanation of return values would improve completeness.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description repeats which parameters are needed for each action, which is useful but not additive beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (work item comments) and lists specific actions (add, list), distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage other aspects of Azure DevOps. 'Manage' is slightly generic, but the action list provides clear purpose.

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 implies usage for managing comments but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use. It gives action-specific requirements but no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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