search_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral constraint that description text is not searched, specifies exact match fields, and states the return type. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only safety, pagination, or permission requirements, but for a search tool the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, immediately followed by an alternative usage, then a structured Args list and Returns. No fluff; each sentence provides useful information.

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?

With 6 parameters all explained, an explicit usage alternative, and a stated return object, the description is complete for a search tool. The presence of an output schema means return structure is already defined elsewhere.

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%, and the description fully compensates with a clear Args list. Each parameter (query, expand, fields, external_id, external_source, order_by) gets a meaningful explanation, including behavior like prefix '-' for descending order.

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 'Search work items by text across a workspace' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also specifies the search fields (name, sequence id, project identifier) and distinguishes itself from list_work_items, which is used for structured filtering.

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 explicitly directs users to use list_work_items with a PQL expression for structured filtering, and implies this tool is for free-text search. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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