search_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that name/content are searched but omits crucial behavior: what happens when project_id is null (search scope), pagination, case sensitivity, result ordering, or return format. This is a significant gap for a search operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action. It contains no redundant words and is easy to parse, but it may be too brief to fully support an agent's decision-making.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It lacks information on pagination, result ordering, scope when project_id is omitted, and field matching semantics. The presence of sibling list/get tools makes more contextual guidance necessary for correct tool selection.

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 adds that search is by 'name/content', which relates to the query parameter, but it does not explain the project_id parameter or its optional/default behavior. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no other documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') with a clear resource ('work items') and scope ('in a project by name/content'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_work_items and get_work_item by indicating full-text search capability.

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 phrase 'full-text search' implies a use case for finding items by text content, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. Sibling tools like list_work_items exist but are not cross-referenced, leaving room for ambiguity.

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