get-work-items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details. It earns its place but lacks depth.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, or behavioral context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. It should do more to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (wiql, ids, fields). The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., wiql vs ids) or provide usage examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the basic action ('Get work items') and source ('from Azure DevOps'), which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'get' entails (e.g., list, retrieve, query) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'create-work-item' or 'update-work-item' beyond the verb difference. It's vague but not tautological.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like querying with WIQL versus retrieving by IDs, or how it differs from other get-* tools (e.g., 'get-builds', 'get-pull-requests'). The description offers no context for selection, leaving usage unclear.

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