Search threads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: case-insensitive substring matching on each word, and that it searches active and archived threads. However, it does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or any potential side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency for a search tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary use, the second adds scope. No wasted words, and the key matching semantics are included without being verbose.

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 output schema, the description covers the search criteria and scope but omits what the response looks like (e.g., list of threads, thread IDs, full objects). Given sibling tools like list_threads likely return threads, an agent might infer this, but it's not explicitly stated. The core search behavior is well described, but the return structure is a gap.

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 50% (only limit is described with 'Default 10'). The tool description compensates by explaining the query parameter's meaning: words matched against title, project name, or branch. Limit is not elaborated beyond its schema default, but its purpose is reasonably inferable from the parameter name and the 'search' context.

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's function: 'Find threads by words from the title, project name, or branch' with specific matching behavior. It differentiates from siblings like list_threads (which lists all) and get_thread (which retrieves a specific thread) by focusing on keyword-based search.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to search threads by words) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like list_threads or provide any exclusions. It gives clear context about scope (active and archived) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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