search_plan_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool searches multiple fields and returns matching tasks, but does not mention output format, pagination, ordering, or any access limitations. For a read-only search operation, this is partially transparent but lacking in return behavior details.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action (Search), resource (plan tasks), and key criteria (by title, description, tags, or content) without any fluff or repetition. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools for detailed views, the description covers the essential purpose and search fields. It lacks an explicit statement about the return payload, but for a context-finding tool this is a minor gap, making it mostly complete.

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?

While schema descriptions already cover both parameters, the tool description adds value by explicitly enumerating the searchable fields (title, description, tags, content) rather than the generic 'metadata or content' in the schema. This gives the agent richer understanding of what the query parameter matches against.

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 plan tasks within PlanCreator using specific searchable fields (title, description, tags, content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_plan_tasks (which likely lists all tasks) and get_task_details (which retrieves specific task details).

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 use when needing to find tasks by query terms across metadata/content, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the search-vs-list distinction is inferable from the phrasing.

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