find_project_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and largely drops it. It does not say whether the operation is read-only (implied by "search" but unstated), whether all matches or a capped page are returned, or how matching and case sensitivity behave.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action leads. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity comes at the cost of the usage and matching details an agent needs.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum state the match semantics, the return shape (all matches vs. truncated), and the relationship to the adjacent list/get tools. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess on the exact parts that determine 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 100%, so both `query` and the `type` enum are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description's only addition is the word "pattern," which actually introduces ambiguity about match semantics rather than resolving it, and the type filter goes unmentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search project items") with the matching dimension named ("by name pattern"), so an agent knows it is a filtered lookup rather than a mutation. It fails to differentiate from the sibling get_project_items, which lists items, or from get_project_item_info, which fetches one item's details.

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 on when to use this instead of get_project_items (list all) or get_project_item_info (single item by ID), which is the main routing decision an agent faces in this family. It also never states what "pattern" means — substring, wildcard, regex, case sensitivity — so the agent cannot reliably construct a query.

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