Search Redmine

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds context about the scope (full-text across multiple types) but does not disclose behavior like pagination, result ordering, or potential performance implications. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. The key information (purpose, usage guidance) is front-loaded and earns its place. Extremely concise.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple search types) and lack of output schema, a more detailed description of return structure or pagination would be beneficial. However, with good annotations and schema coverage, the description is mostly complete for decision-making.

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 high (86%), so the existing schema already documents parameters well. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score.

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 'full-text search' (specific verb) across specific resources like issues, wiki pages, news, etc. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool list_issues, 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 a clear usage guideline by stating 'Prefer this over list_issues when looking for text,' which helps the agent choose between similar tools. However, it does not specify when NOT to use (e.g., for exact ID lookups), leaving room for improvement.

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