search_tasks_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It includes performance metrics (1k notes <3s, 10k <30s), details the metadata format, and specifies the return structure (tasks with metadata, file locations, line numbers). It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it, slightly reducing completeness.

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 well-organized into clear sections: purpose, metadata format, use cases, performance, and returns. Each section provides essential information without redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 12 parameters with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by detailing return values (tasks with full metadata, file locations, line numbers) and providing performance benchmarks. It covers typical use cases comprehensively, making it self-sufficient for the agent.

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?

The input schema already describes parameters well (92% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the Tasks plugin metadata format (emoji symbols for priority and dates), which clarifies the meaning of filters like priority and due dates beyond the schema's enum values and date patterns.

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 it searches and filters tasks by metadata across the vault, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_notes_tool (note content search) and get_task_statistics_tool (statistics). It specifies filesystem-native, offline operation, and Tasks plugin metadata, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit use cases (overdue tasks, high-priority tasks, weekly schedules, recurring reviews) which guide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, which would have improved the score further.

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