Find Checklist Items by Description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs exact, case sensitivity), whether results span multiple cards/boards, or the consequence of omitting cardId and boardId.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the matching criterion. It is not padded, though it is arguably too terse for the scoping decisions the tool requires.

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 simple search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It nonetheless omits search semantics and the cross-card/cross-board scoping behavior 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 all three parameters are already documented, including the note that cardId is recommended to avoid ambiguity. The description only paraphrases the required description parameter, adding nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb (Search) and resource (checklist items) plus the matching criterion (containing specific text in their description). However, it does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings like get_checklist_items or get_checklist_by_name, which also retrieve checklist items.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_checklist_items, get_checklist_by_name, or get_acceptance_criteria. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that this is the text-search variant.

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