search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important operational behavior: suggestion selection, loose field matching, the side effect of clear=True removing existing facets, and the return value (active facets). It does not mention scope behavior, but the main behavioral traits are transparently covered.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence contributes useful behavior or parameter semantics. Slightly dense run-on phrasing prevents a 5, but there is no wasted content.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden. For a four-parameter UI-search tool with no annotations, the description covers the required text, the optional field semantics, and the clear side effect. The only notable omission is the scope parameter, leaving it slightly incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains text, field (label shown in suggestions, matched loosely), and clear (removes existing facets), but does not explain the scope parameter at all. This is a strong partial compensation, missing only one parameter's meaning.

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 states the exact action ('Type in the search box of the current list/kanban') and conveys the resource and context. It is specific enough to distinguish this from siblings like open_record or open_menu, and it clarifies what result the tool produces (active facets).

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 two modes of use: no field uses the first suggestion, and a field picks the matching suggestion. It also explains clear=True behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but no direct sibling search tool exists, so this is sufficient contextual usage guidance.

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