Search Workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches only 'accessible' items and applies 'normalized text matches'. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, what counts as a match, or how limits/cursors work. Given the strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, scope, and nature of the search efficiently.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, one sentence is not enough. The description fails to mention return values, pagination mechanics, the meaning of 'normalized', or how closed items are treated. Annotations cover safety but not the behavioral details needed for effective use.

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 0%, and there are 7 parameters. The description does not explain the meaning or format of most parameters (limit, cursor, max_pages, workspace_id, include_closed). It does imply that 'query' is a text match and that entity_types cover Tasks/Spaces/Folders/Lists, but this is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Sweep' and clearly identifies the resources searched (Tasks, Spaces, Folders, Lists) and the nature of the search ('normalized text matches'). This strongly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_tasks_by_task_type and search_tasks_by_tag, which are narrower and type-specific.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to search across multiple workspace entity types for normalized text. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as search_tasks_by_tag. The usage context is reasonably clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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