search_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return structure ({items, count, hasMore}), explains pagination semantics (increment offset by limit when hasMore is true), and clarifies the matching field (task names). This goes beyond a simple operation statement, though it omits details like error behavior or read-only status, which are not critical for a search tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and packs in return structure, pagination guidance, and a cross-reference to a sibling tool—all without superfluous 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?

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both return shape and safety. It does supply the return shape and pagination behavior, and the search intent inherently implies a read operation. Missing details like sorting or error cases are minor, and the reference to get_task helps round out the workflow.

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 schema already covers all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how offset and limit work together for pagination ('increment offset by limit when hasMore is true'), which is not explicit in the schema. It also reinforces that query matches task names, complementing the schema.

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's purpose: 'Search tasks by matching the query against task names.' This includes a specific verb (search), a resource (tasks), and a precise scope (task names), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_emails or list_tasks.

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 provides a clear pointer for when to use an alternative: 'For full task details, call get_task on a matching ID.' It also implies this is the tool for name-based search, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_tasks or other search tools, so a small gap remains.

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