search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the search semantics (all_words, titles_only, open_issues_only) but does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. The output schema likely covers return structure, but behavioral context beyond parameter meanings is limited.

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 with the purpose, followed by a structured Args block. Each parameter explanation is necessary and earns its place. It is slightly longer than minimal but remains efficient and scannable.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the search scope, filtering options, matching logic, and result limit. It lacks details on result ordering or pagination, but the output schema likely addresses return structure. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all six parameters, including defaults and matching behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, offering clarity on query, filtering, and limit semantics.

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 identifies the action ('Search for text') and the resource scope ('across issues, wiki pages, news, and other Redmine objects'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools, which are entity-specific retrievers rather than global text searches.

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 usage for finding text across multiple Redmine object types but does not explicitly state when to use search versus list_issues or get_issue. It provides parameter context (e.g., restricting by project, titles_only) but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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