tasks_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'search' which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination (limit/after parameters), sorting capabilities, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when no filters are provided. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide essential operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single 5-word sentence. While this is efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise given the tool's complexity. However, it doesn't waste words or have structural issues.

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 search tool with 5 parameters (including complex nested filterGroups), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, error conditions, or how to construct valid queries. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based on the provided information.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description only vaguely references 'specific filters' without explaining the complex filterGroups structure, properties selection, limit/after pagination, or sorts functionality. For a tool with 5 parameters including nested objects, this is inadequate compensation for the schema's lack of 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 'Search tasks with specific filters' states the action (search) and resource (tasks) but is vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify whether this searches all tasks or has limitations, and doesn't distinguish it from other task tools like tasks_list or tasks_get.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tasks_list or tasks_get. The description mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't explain when filtered search is preferred over simpler listing operations, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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