wrike_search_tasks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation (likely safe), whether it returns partial matches or exact matches, how pagination works (limit parameter exists), or whether search is case-insensitive. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action. For a search tool, the user would benefit from knowing defaults or limitations (e.g., maximum limit, search syntax).

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with 'Search tasks', no fluff. It is concise but could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning status/importance filters). Still, every word earns its place.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 5 optional parameters, the description should explain more about intended use and return behavior. It does not mention that results are likely a list of tasks, whether it supports fuzzy search, or any limitations. The tool is relatively simple but the description leaves important gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly (e.g., what happens if no search terms are provided?).

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 each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds a little value by grouping title/description/custom fields as search targets, but it does not clarify how parameters interact (e.g., AND vs OR), whether at least one search term is required, or how 'status'/'importance' filtering combines with search. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents parameters.

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?

Description: 'Search tasks by title, description, or custom fields' clearly states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('tasks'), with search scopes listed. It distinguishes from siblings like wrike_list_tasks (list all) and wrike_get_task (retrieve a single task), but does not explicitly mention that it searches across these fields in a combined or filterable way, nor does it mention 'status' or 'importance' filters.

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 usage: use when you need to find tasks based on title/description/custom fields, as opposed to listing all tasks (wrike_list_tasks) or fetching a specific task (wrike_get_task). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you need to list without filters) or name alternative tools. The schema parameters like 'status' and 'importance' suggest filtering use cases, but the description doesn't contextualize them.

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