adtk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search methods but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination behavior, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a 6-parameter tool with multiple actions, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and available actions. However, it could be more front-loaded by specifying this is a multi-action search tool before listing the actions.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters, multiple action types, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return formats, error handling, or how different actions behave differently. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the action options, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, dependencies between action and other parameters, or usage examples beyond what's in the schema.

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 searches Azure DevOps using specific methods (WIQL, code, work item, wiki) and lists available actions. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'Azure DevOps', but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like manage_work_items or manage_wiki that might handle similar domains differently.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_work_items or manage_wiki. It lists actions but doesn't explain when each action is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed for different search types.

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