Search work packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it states the query-less default, that only open items are listed unless includeClosed is set, and that full descriptions are intentionally deferred to another tool. It does not mention pagination or auth expectations, but neither is critical for a read-only search call.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most important behavioral detail (query-less default) is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either purpose, behavior, return content, or a routing pointer.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and the follow-up path to get_work_package, which is enough for an agent to chain calls. It is not exhaustive about all sibling relationships or edge-case behaviors, but it is complete for the tool's core use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining what happens when query is omitted—it lists the most recently updated open items—thus clarifying query's optionality and the implied ordering/filtering beyond what the schema states.

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 names a clear action ('Search work packages') and resource, then clarifies the kinds of entities included (tasks, bugs, milestones) and the full-text scope. It also distinguishes itself from get_work_package by noting it returns only summary fields and that details come from the sibling tool.

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 explains the default behavior when no query is given and explicitly routes the agent to get_work_package for full descriptions. It does not enumerate when to prefer other siblings like list_statuses or list_types, but the most important differentiation is present.

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