Query work items (WIQL)

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that only matching work item IDs are returned, but it does not disclose potential edge cases such as pagination, query limits, or project scoping behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and result, and the example concretely illustrates the query format without adding unnecessary length.

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 simple read-only query tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete: it states inputs, gives an example, and declares the return value (work item IDs). The main gap is the undocumented 'project' parameter, but the tool is otherwise adequately specified.

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?

The schema documents 'wiql' as 'A WIQL query string' but gives no description for 'project'. The description contributes a concrete WIQL example, which clarifies wiql syntax, but it says nothing about the required project parameter's meaning or format. Half of the parameter space remains under-explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a WIQL query and return matching work item ids.' The WIQL reference and example make the tool's purpose clear and distinct from get_work_item and the list_* siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 WIQL example implies this tool is for ad-hoc work item queries, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. An agent is left to infer that it should use this instead of get_work_item when needing to filter by criteria rather than fetch one item.

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