Search Bruno requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the scope ('all collections'), the execution model ('in a single call'), and the result shape ('each matching request tagged with its collection id'). It lacks explicit statements about pagination or error behavior, so it is not a 5, but it is transparent about the core behavior.

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 sentences with no filler. The core behavior and scope are front-loaded, and the result behavior is stated succinctly. Every clause contributes value.

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?

For a relatively simple search tool, the description plus schema covers scope, matching behavior, filters, and result tagging well. The lack of an output schema keeps it from a 5, since the exact structure of 'tagged' results is not fully specified.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including semantics for query, type, and method. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific action ('Search requests'), a clear resource scope ('across all Bruno OpenCollection collections in the workspace'), and highlights the 'single call' nature. The mention that results are tagged with collection id further distinguishes this from collection-scoped siblings like bruno_list_requests and bruno_get_request.

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 cross-collection searching rather than per-collection listing or fetching, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. The usage context is clear enough, but there is no direct routing to sibling tools.

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