AzureDevops_MyWorkItems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and omits important behavioral traits such as default filtering (e.g., whether completed items are included unless include_completed is set), pagination behavior via the 'top' parameter, or the shape of the returned data. The description does not contradict annotations (there are none), but it provides minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that succinctly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 a simple interface with fully described parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. However, it lacks critical contextual details such as the default behavior regarding completed work items, the meaning of 'assigned to the current user' in relation to the required project parameter, and any implicit limits or return format. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 100% for all three parameters (project, top, include_completed), so the schema already defines each parameter's meaning. The tool description itself adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool gets work items assigned to the current user, distinguishing it from sibling tools like GetWorkItem (which fetches a specific item) and RunWorkItemQuery (which runs custom queries). The verb 'Get' and resource 'work items' are specific and 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?

The description implies the primary use case—retrieving the current user's assigned work items—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as GetWorkItem for a single item or RunWorkItemQuery for complex queries. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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