search_work_items

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results contain summary fields only, matches cover names/sequence IDs/project identifiers, and it provides the linking URL format. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences with no fluff. Each sentence delivers essential information: action/scope, matching fields, result field limitations, and a practical linking format. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 and 3 parameters, the description covers the key aspects: what is searched, result scope, result field limitations, and guidance for full details. It is comprehensive without needing an output schema to explain return values.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds extra meaning: query matches against item names, sequence IDs, and project identifiers, and project_id restricts the scope to a single project. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions, though limit is not mentioned in the description.

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 for work items by text query, specifying what it matches against (names, sequence IDs, project identifiers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_work_items (which lists without text query) and retrieve_work_item (which provides full 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 explicitly says the search covers the entire workspace unless project_id is given, giving clear scope guidance. It also directs users to use retrieve_work_item for full details, providing an explicit alternative for a different use case.

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