find_work_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses query matching behavior (case-insensitive, title/description), optional facet filters, and the default status ('open'). It does not mention output format or pagination, but those are at least partially covered by the schema's default for 'limit' and the 'format' parameter description.

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 two sentences: front-loaded with the core purpose, then compactly listing filters and status semantics. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main required context: search semantics, filters, status default, and a typical use case. It could additionally describe the return shape or the effect of 'limit', but it gives enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 low (13%), so the description compensates by explaining the semantics of query, importance, tag, stage, and status. The remaining parameters (project_id, limit, format) are either self-explanatory or already documented in the schema. This is strong added value, though not exhaustive for all eight 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('a project's work items'), and clearly distinguishes this from list/scan operations by calling it 'the name-based lookup that saves chaining list→scan→act.' It also states what matches (title or description), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this to resolve a task known by name into its id before update_work_item or similar actions. It also implies the alternative of chaining list→scan→act, but does not explicitly say when *not* to use this tool versus list_work_items or get_work_item, so it stops short of a 5.

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