ado_work_item_fields_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only says 'List', implying a read-only action, but does not disclose whether system/hidden fields are included, how project scoping works, permission requirements, or any other behavior. It adds no insight beyond the tool name itself.

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?

A single, concise sentence of eight words that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it fails to clarify what happens when 'project' is null or whether project is required in practice. The description is minimal but enough for a basic list call, with gaps around parameter behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, 'project', is mentioned only as 'in a project', which essentially restates the parameter name without explaining expected format, null/default behavior, or how the value is interpreted. This is minimal semantic addition over the raw 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 uses a concrete verb ('List') and a specific resource ('work item fields') with a clear scope ('available in a project'). It is naturally distinct from sibling tools like ado_work_item_types_list and ado_work_item_get because it targets fields rather than types or individual work items.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not name alternatives, mention exclusions, or give preconditions. The only hint is the generic purpose of listing fields, which leaves selection to inference.

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