Search tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral nuance—eventual consistency and indexing delay—which is useful. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or whether empty text returns all tasks, so transparency is only partially addressed.

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: two sentences with no redundant wording. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

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 search tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, default behavior, or how results are ordered/paginated. The eventual consistency note is helpful but does not compensate for the lack of operational detail.

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 70%, below the high threshold, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not add any parameter-level detail. However, most parameters have schema descriptions, so the description's lack of param info is not critical; it neither helps nor harms, leading to a baseline score.

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 a specific action ('Search tasks') with a resource and scope ('in an Asana workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks, which imply listing rather than querying, and get_task, which targets a single task.

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 is given on when to use search_tasks versus alternatives like list_tasks. The description implies its purpose but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent guessing about the appropriate context.

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