adtk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists actions but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, whether actions are read-only or mutative (e.g., 'create_plan' implies mutation but isn't clarified), or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple actions including creations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by an action list. It avoids unnecessary words, but the action list could be more integrated or explanatory to enhance clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 with 8 parameters and multiple actions (including mutations like 'create_plan'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output formats, error cases, and usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond listing action names, which are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the tool manages Azure DevOps test plans, suites, and cases, listing specific actions. It provides a verb ('manage') and resources ('test plans, suites, and cases'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_work_items or manage_boards, which might also handle test-related items in different contexts.

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 lists actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contexts for choosing specific actions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the action list alone.

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