search_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important default behavior ('By default only open items'), which directly informs the include_done parameter. But it does not explicitly state that search is read-only, describe result ordering/limits, or explain edge cases like empty queries. The read-only nature is arguably implied by the word 'Search'.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important default behavior is stated immediately after. Every word adds value.

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 output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description covers the core search semantics and the key default behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about the effect of include_done and limit, but those are reasonably inferable. For a low-complexity search tool, this is nearly complete.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' targets task text/category and implies what include_done does via the default statement. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving that to inference from its name and default value.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('task'), and the fields being searched ('text/category'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_open_tasks (which presumably enumerates tasks) and task_stats (which reports statistics). The purpose is immediately understandable.

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: search tasks by text or category, with a default scope of open items. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when to prefer this over list_open_tasks or other siblings. The condition is only implied, not stated as guidance.

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