searchTickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('ticket summaries with basic info') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if results are paginated, sorted, or limited beyond the 'limit' parameter; doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling; and doesn't clarify what 'basic info' includes. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key details. Every word earns its place: it specifies the action, target, method, and return format without redundancy or fluff. This is optimally concise for a search tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a search tool: it covers the basic purpose and return format. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema by explaining what 'ticket summaries' entail. This is adequate but has clear gaps, fitting a score of 3.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the query can use 'keyword or filter expression' and that results include 'ticket summaries', but it doesn't provide additional syntax examples, format details, or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Search for') and resource ('WordPress Trac tickets') with the method ('by keyword or filter expression'). It distinguishes from siblings like getTicket (single ticket retrieval) and getChangeset (code changes) by focusing on multi-ticket search. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with getTimeline or getTracInfo, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getTicket for single tickets or getTimeline for history. It mentions the search capability but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without explicit direction for tool selection.

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