search_project

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search algorithm (multi-term keyword matching, semantic search on Pro), result caps (4 per type), and input constraints (minimum 3 characters). No destructive behavior is implied, and the search mode is transparent.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences—yet covers the core functionality, search behavior, constraints, and optional parameter usage. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy or verbosity.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides reasonable expectations: results are capped at 4 per type. However, it does not describe the structure of results (e.g., whether they include IDs, titles, or snippets) or sorting order. Still, for a search tool, the behavioral description is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that 'q' requires all terms to match and is order-independent, and that 'type' restricts to a single entity, which is implied by the enum but made explicit. This extra value justifies a score above baseline.

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 identifies the tool as a cross-entity search across multiple project content types (notes, tasks, discussions, messages, memories). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and enumerates the resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list individual entity types.

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 clear usage guidance: explains the matching behavior (multi-term keyword, order-independent), mentions semantic search for Pro plans, notes result limits (4 per type), and explains how the 'type' parameter restricts output. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for appropriate tool selection.

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