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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions but doesn't describe what 'get_current' returns (e.g., current authenticated user details) or how 'search' behaves (e.g., pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements). For a tool with two distinct operations and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first phrase. Both sentences earn their place by specifying actions, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating action descriptions). There's no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two distinct operations. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral details like authentication needs. For a user management tool in Azure DevOps, this lacks necessary context for effective agent use, especially compared to sibling tools that might overlap in functionality.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the actions, which aligns with the schema's description of the 'action' parameter. It doesn't provide additional context like search query examples or when 'query' is required, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search and get Azure DevOps users' with specific actions 'get_current' and 'search'. It uses a verb+resource format that is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_search' or 'manage_projects' which might also involve user-related operations in Azure DevOps.

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. It lists actions but doesn't explain when to choose 'get_current' versus 'search', or how this tool relates to sibling tools like 'manage_search' or 'manage_projects' that might handle user data. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage decisions.

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