find_work_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only via 'without changing Plane,' but it does not mention permissions, scoping behavior, or limits beyond the default parameter values.

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 the core search capability front-loaded. It contains no redundant or filler language.

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?

The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the read-only nature is disclosed. Still, for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves project_id, max_results, and alternative selection under-explained.

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 description must compensate. It explains the query parameter well by naming title, UUID, and project-reference formats, but it gives no semantic guidance for project_id or max_results.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find Plane work items. It also clarifies the search keys (title, UUID, or project reference such as PROJECT-12), which distinguishes it from a general listing tool, though it does not explicitly name list_work_items as the alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the search criteria: use this when you have a title, UUID, or project reference. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_work_items or how project_id/max_results affect selection.

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