Tasker Lookup

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (matching tasks with actions and calls), the presence of hazard flags, and the safety consequence of those flags — genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not state read-only safety explicitly, permission/auth needs, or that the search is a substring match on the query only.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability followed by the return shape and the safety rule. No filler; only minor friction from the backticked command reference which may not mean much to an agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be restated, and the hazard-flag semantics are covered. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without guidance on limit/pagination or the project filter, which is a real gap for a 3-parameter 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 0% and none of the three parameters (query, project, limit) are documented. The description only indirectly implies the query parameter is a name substring and gives no meaning for project or limit (default/pagination behavior), leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (the Tasker catalog built by `dgm catalog`) with the matching rule (task/profile name substring). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from tasker_run, which fires tasks, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context (look things up in the catalog) and an explicit prohibition with rationale ('Never fire a task marked hazard; tasker_run refuses them anyway'), naming the alternative tool. It stops short of saying exactly when to prefer this over tasker_run (e.g. 'call this first to resolve a task name'), so not a full 5.

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