Semantic issue search

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

Adds value beyond annotations by noting the index dependency and default output behavior (only id+score without 'select'). No contradictions with annotations (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive). Could mention error handling for missing index.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with critical usage details. No wasted words. Every sentence 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?

Explains prerequisite and default returns. For an 8-parameter tool without output schema, this covers key context. Lacks details on result format or pagination, but acceptable given the tool's nature.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context: natural-language query interpretation, default output constraints, and the 'select' parameter's effect. This extra information justifies a 4.

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?

Description clearly specifies verb ('Search'), resource ('issues'), and method ('by natural-language meaning'), differentiating from keyword-based siblings like mantis_get_issues or mantis_list_issues. It also highlights the use case ('find similar/duplicate incidents').

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?

States when to use (natural-language meaning, duplicates) and prerequisite (index must be built first). Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context implies it's not for exact keyword searches. Could be improved with direct comparison to sibling search tools.

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