backlog_search

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 discloses that the tool applies fuzzy matching and semantic similarity automatically and returns relevance-ranked results. It does not mention any destructive effects, but search is typically read-only. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about safety.

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 consists of two sentences: the first defines the purpose and behavior, the second provides usage guidance. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and use case. It explains the core functionality (search, relevance ranking, match context) and differentiation from a sibling.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond summarizing the search behavior and sibling differentiation.

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 the tool searches across all backlog content (tasks, epics, resources) and returns relevance-ranked results with match context. It distinguishes itself from the sibling backlog_list, which is for filtering.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for discovery; use backlog_list for filtering by status/type,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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