search_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the search scope (all lists or one list); it says nothing about matching fields beyond title, result caps, or ordering.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description omits search-field scope (title only), result limits, and how results relate to list_tasks output, leaving an agent to infer them.

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 67%: query and status are documented in-schema while list is bare. The description loosely maps to those parameters ('关键字' -> query, '指定列表' -> list) but adds no format, syntax, or default details beyond 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?

States a specific verb (搜索/search), resource (任务/tasks), and scope (所有列表或指定列表/all or a specified list), which distinguishes it from plain list_tasks. It stops short of naming list_tasks or get_today_tasks as the non-search alternatives.

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 phrase '按关键字' implies the tool is for keyword-driven lookup, and '(或指定列表)' hints at narrowing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs list_tasks/get_today_tasks guidance and no exclusions.

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