papertrail_issue_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'cached,' implying no live updates, but omits details like idempotency, rate limits, side effects (e.g., cache warming), or whether results are real-time. For a search tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 with no wasted words, but it is too terse for a tool with 7 parameters. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices necessary detail.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain search behavior, options like include_graph or worktree, or return value structure. The tool's complexity demands more thorough documentation.

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 29%, yet the description adds zero detail about any parameter. It does not explain 'include', 'worktree', 'graph_limit', or 'include_graph'—all critical for correct invocation. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('full-text search'), the resource ('cached tracker issue and change-request'), and the scope ('titles and bodies'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like 'semantic_search' or 'commit_search' by specifying the domain (papertrail issues).

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 (e.g., semantic_search, rationale_search). It lacks explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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