Query Work Items

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about MQL syntax requirements and label pitfalls, which helps the agent avoid common errors. It does not contradict annotations and adds value by flagging that generic constants like OPEN or IN_PROGRESS should not be assumed.

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 action, and contains no superfluous text. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance: the first states purpose and scope, the second warns about MQL completeness and label usage.

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 has 5 parameters, rich schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key usage pitfalls. It does not explain pagination or session_id, but those are documented thoroughly in the schema. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly when combined with the schema.

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 already documents every parameter, including mql's requirement to be a complete query string with label guidance. The tool description reinforces the MQL completeness rule but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, just slight emphasis on 'not just filters or fragments.'

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 runs an MQL query against a project for listing or searching work items, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like workitem_get (fetch a single item) or workitem_create/update by focusing on query-based listing/searching.

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 says 'Use this for listing or searching work items across a project,' which conveys the primary use case. It also provides important guidance on forming a complete MQL string and using project display labels, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusion criteria.

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