autotask_search_configuration_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions 'optional filters'. It omits important details like pagination behavior (though pageSize parameter exists), default filtering, search semantics (e.g., exact match vs substring), or whether inactive items are included by default.

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 sentence, achieving conciseness but sacrificing completeness. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks elaboration that could aid understanding; it is minimally adequate.

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 has 5 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It does not explain return structure, search behavior, or how to interpret results. Among many sibling search tools, it offers little differentiation besides the resource name.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the phrase 'with optional filters', which reinforces but does not extend beyond what the schema provides. For the undocumented 'isActive' parameter, the description offers no additional meaning.

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 the action ('Search') and the resource ('configuration items'), and mentions optional filters. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying the entity type, though it could be more precise about what constitutes a configuration item.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other search tools. It does not include context on recommended use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to rely solely on the tool name.

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