search_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the scope ('across all projects') and fields ('title or description'), which is transparent. However, it does not disclose details like case sensitivity, pagination, or authorization needs, leaving some gaps.

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, concise sentence that contains no fluff. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, scope, and search fields.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could mention result ordering or limits, but these are not critical for a search action, so the description is complete enough.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'status' parameters. The description does not add parameter details, but it doesn't need to because the schema fully documents them. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('tasks'), and clearly specifies scope ('across all projects') and fields ('by title or description'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks and get_task, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 for searching across all projects, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_tasks or provide alternatives or exclusions. It conveys a clear context but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of others.

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