search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses rich behavioral details: the four result lists, that boards is easy to miss, matching rules (whole words and prefixes, 3-char minimum), return format (short lines, not full content), and the control characters \x01/\x02 in excerpts. This goes well beyond a basic search description.

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 long but every sentence serves a purpose: core action, usage context, result structure, matching caveat, return granularity, and excerpt format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with essential details. No filler.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the four return lists, their semantics (comments are ticket references, no duplicates), and the pitfall with boards. It also covers matching constraints and follow-up actions. This is complete for a complex search tool.

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 only 33% (only 'limit' is described). The description adds meaningful context about the query behavior (matching, minimum length) which relates to 'q', but it does not explicitly map each parameter by name. It also doesn't describe workspace_uuid beyond the search scope. Some compensation, but not complete.

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 opens with a specific verb and scope: 'Search tickets, wiki pages AND ticket comments across a whole workspace in one call, ranked by relevance with a highlighted excerpt.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling list_tickets by noting that list_tickets requires a board_uuid whereas this tool does not.

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?

It explicitly advises using this tool when the board or wiki location is unknown, and contrasts with list_tickets which requires a board_uuid. It also recommends follow-up tools (get_ticket, get_ticket_comments, get_wiki_page) for full content, but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the implicit contrast.

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