devops_work_item_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the core search and filtering behavior but omits details on pagination (e.g., default top=25, max 200), rate limits, or response format. The schema covers pagination parameters, but the description does not reference them. It does mention 'configured Azure DevOps project', indicating configuration is needed.

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 sentence that conveys the purpose and key filtering options without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description is sufficient for a search tool with an output schema (which documents return values) and fully described parameters. However, it could be more complete by mentioning pagination behavior (top/skip) or clarifying that search_text is required. Given the complexity of 8 parameters, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, meaning each parameter already has a description in the schema. The description lists the optional filters in prose but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'work items', and specifies the types (PBIs, bugs, tasks) and the optional filters (area path, work item type, state, assigned-to). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like devops_code_search (code search) and devops_work_item_query_by_wiql (structured query).

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 indicates it performs full-text search with optional filters, implying use cases for free-text queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., when you need to query by WIQL or retrieve a specific work item by ID), nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit guidance would be better.

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