phabricator_revision_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing further about behavior. It is silent on pagination cursor semantics, attachment fetching cost, and whether results are capped despite the 100-limit parameter.

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 compact phrase with zero waste and the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than polished concision.

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?

With seven parameters including nested constraints and attachments, no output schema, and multiple search-shaped siblings, the description should explain result behavior and how searches are scoped. It leaves the agent to infer everything from the schema.

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 every constraint, pagination, order, and attachment field documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description contributes no additional parameter context, which is acceptable at full coverage but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Differential revisions (code reviews)'), clarifying that revisions mean code reviews. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like phabricator_diff_search or phabricator_revision_edit, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 word 'Search' implies a read/query use case, and the readOnlyHint reinforces it, but the description never says when to pick this over phabricator_diff_search or phabricator_revision_paths, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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