ado_query_work_items

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

The description discloses that the tool returns 'work item references', which is a key behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention pagination limits or response format, but annotations already indicate safety. The description adds value by specifying the output nature.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. It is efficient though could benefit from bullet points for clarity, but no waste.

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?

Low complexity with 2 params and no output schema. The description adequately states the purpose but omits details on pagination or whether all matching items are returned. Given sibling tools that fetch full work items, specifying 'references' is helpful but incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters already described clearly. The description does not add extra meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Run'), the resource ('WIQL query'), and the outcome ('return matching work item references'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_work_item' which retrieves by ID, and 'get_work_items' which likely fetches multiple by IDs.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_work_items or bulk_export_work_items. The use case for custom WIQL queries is implied but not compared with fetch-by-ID methods.

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