search_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'Search across the workspace...' without mentioning whether the search is read-only, what the result format is, any limitations on search scope, or side effects. This is insufficient disclosure.

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, clear sentence that is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Search.' There is no waste, but the inclusion of 'etc.' introduces slight ambiguity.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal and leaves gaps: it doesn't clarify what entities are included beyond examples, whether results are paginated, or what the success/empty result looks like. This completeness gap is notable given no annotations exist.

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 provides a 'query' parameter with description 'Search query text.' The tool description adds context that the query searches across issues, projects, cycles, modules, etc., giving some scope meaning. However, it doesn't provide format expectations or examples, so it adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches across the workspace for multiple entity types (issues, projects, cycles, modules), using a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'workspace.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are entity-specific CRUD operations. However, the 'etc.' is vague and doesn't enumerate all possible searchable types.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using specific get_issue or list_issues for targeted access. The description only states what it does without any context on appropriate usage.

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