ado_work_items_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are lightweight references and are capped at 200, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (read-only query, reference-shaped results, hard cap), with the core purpose front-loaded and no 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 return-shape and cap notes compensate well for the absent output schema, but for a tool with a nested target object and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves WIQL authoring and target scoping unexplained. It is workable but has clear gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It implies project scoping via "in a project" and echoes the 200 cap, but never explains WIQL syntax/format, the top parameter or its default of 50, or the target object's fields (profile, organization, repository, repoPath).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Execute read-only WIQL in a project") and adds scope. "Returns references, not expanded items" implicitly distinguishes it from ado_work_item_get, which expands items, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that results are references rather than expanded items hints that ado_work_item_get is needed afterward, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. An agent must infer the workflow.

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