establish_work_item_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior: resolves URL or ID, uses cached repository context for numeric IDs, and returns a structured context. It also discloses a caveat about incorrect org_url when work board and code repo are in different orgs. Missing error handling or failure modes, but overall transparent.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, a paragraph explaining the output, a caveat paragraph, and an Args section. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 two parameters, an output schema (not shown), and no annotations, the description covers input, output, and a notable edge case. It explains the resulting data structure (organisation, project, ID, org_url) and provides a behavior caveat. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description adds full semantics for both parameters: work_item_url_or_id ('A full Azure DevOps work-item URL or a numeric work-item ID.') and working_directory ('Optional path for repository-context resolution when using a numeric ID.'). This provides meaning beyond the type-only schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve a work-item URL or numeric ID into a structured context.' It specifies the input types and what the output context carries (organisation, project, ID, org_url). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_work_item and query_work_items by focusing on context resolution.

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 provides guidance on when to use each input type: it advises preferring a full URL over a bare numeric ID due to potential org mismatches. It mentions the caveat about work board vs code repo. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools.

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