ado_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what actions do, not side effects, permissions, or return values. The word 'Manage' could imply write operations, but only read actions are listed, creating ambiguity. No mention of read-only nature or required configuration is provided.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then uses a clear bullet list for actions. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The description covers both actions and their parameter requirements, but it omits return value descriptions (given no output schema) and prerequisites such as prior configuration via ado_configure. It is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps for a tool with multiple actions.

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?

The description clarifies conditional requirements: planId is required for the get action, while startDate and endDate are optional. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only marks 'action' as required. Although the schema already includes 'for get' in property descriptions, the explicit requirement/optional distinction is valuable.

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 clearly identifies the tool as managing delivery plans (roadmaps) and enumerates two specific actions (list and get) with concise descriptions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other Azure DevOps resources like sprints or projects.

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 action list implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like ado_sprints or ado_projects. It does not state exclusions or mention alternative tools, leaving the decision solely to the agent's inference.

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