cor_search_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation ('search') but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, result limits, or default ordering. The presence of an output schema mitigates some lack of return value detail, but more context on behavior would be beneficial.

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—one sentence followed by a bullet list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value with no wasted content.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks details on possible filter combinations, valid status values, or whether all filters are optional. The agent would need to infer these from the schema or 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?

The input schema defines 'filters' as an object with no properties (additionalProperties: true), providing zero structural detail. The description compensates by listing example filter fields (projectId, clientId, status, text, dates, labels), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not specify types or required fields.

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 'Search tasks with filters' and lists example filter fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cor_get_task (single task) and cor_search_time_entries (time entries). The verb-resource combination is specific and 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 description implies this tool is for searching tasks when filters are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cor_list_projects or cor_get_task. No disclaimers or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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