ado_work_items_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'bounded' and 'query'. This hints at a read-only operation with a limit, but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, pagination behavior, or whether any mutation occurs. 'Bounded' adds limited context but not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single efficient sentence with no redundant wording. 'Bounded' and 'in a project' are meaningful qualifiers, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices informative 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 has an output schema and only three parameters, so complexity is moderate, but the description is still incomplete. It omits any practical usage context, parameter semantics, or behavior around the optional project and top values. An agent would need to open schemas or rely on assumptions to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning by indicating that the query is WIQL-based and occurs within a project, which loosely maps to the wiql and project parameters. However, it does not explain the top parameter, WIQL syntax, or the behavior of optional/nullable parameters.

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 action ('run') and the resource ('a bounded WIQL query in a project'), which distinguishes it from single-item get/create/update tools. It does not explicitly state that the result is a list of matching work items, but 'WIQL query' is specific enough for an agent to infer the 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings like ado_work_item_get, ado_work_item_create, or ado_work_item_update. The description implies a querying/read use case but does not state exclusions or provide a decision rule.

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