tasks_search

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 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is read-only (likely, but not stated), pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on empty results. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool name.

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 with no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise - it lacks necessary detail for a tool with 5 complex parameters. Front-loading is good but content is insufficient.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the complex filtering system, pagination, sorting, or return format. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'specific filters' which hints at the 'filterGroups' parameter, but doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Search tasks with specific filters' states the verb ('search') and resource ('tasks'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_get'. It mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't clarify what makes this search different from other task retrieval methods.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_get'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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