search_task_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions fuzzy matching and case-insensitivity but omits critical details like whether results are paginated, ordered, or limited. The return format is not described beyond 'returns all tasks', which could imply unbounded results.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The args list is clean. However, the statements about matching are slightly redundant ('partial/fuzzy' vs 'contains'). Overall efficient.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. The tool is simple with one parameter. The description covers core functionality, but could mention pagination or limits for completeness. Still, for a basic search, it's adequate.

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 description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter beyond the schema, specifying it matches against task titles and is case-insensitive. With 0% schema coverage, this is valuable. However, it could further clarify expected format (e.g., no wildcards needed).

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 it searches tasks by name with partial/fuzzy matching, and specifies it returns all tasks with matching titles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tasks (likely lists all tasks) and complete_task_by_name (completes a task).

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. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to other search methods like get_tasks or filtering by other criteria.

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