phabricator_project_search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only status, pagination behavior, rate limits, or required permissions. The agent cannot infer important safety or performance characteristics from the description alone.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity (many parameters, nested objects), a slightly more detailed description could improve usability without harming conciseness. Still, it is not overly verbose.

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?

The description is very incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how to combine constraints. The agent would need to rely solely on the schema, which may not provide full context.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the schema already handles that. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search Phabricator projects' clearly states the verb and resource, but it lacks differentiation from sibling search tools like phabricator_blog_search. The name itself includes 'project', so it's reasonably clear.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The single sentence does not help the agent decide between this and other project-related tools.

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