taiga_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 and does not meet it. It says nothing about matching semantics (title vs body, substring vs full-text, case sensitivity), result limits, pagination, or ordering — all of which materially affect whether an agent can use the results.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail an agent needs, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 an unannotated, two-parameter search with no output schema, the description omits what the results look like (grouped by type? mixed? fields per hit?), how matches are determined, and any result caps. An agent cannot predict the response shape or matching behavior from this definition.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. 'In a project' weakly implies project_id scope and 'search' implies the query, but neither the query syntax nor whether project_id constrains results to a single project is stated, so the description adds almost nothing beyond the parameter names.

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 (search) and enumerates the resource types searched (stories, tasks, issues, wiki), scoped to a project. That distinguishes it from the type-specific siblings like taiga_list_user_stories or taiga_list_wiki_pages, though it never explicitly names the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of multiple content types suggests this is the cross-cutting search to use when the entity type is unknown. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over taiga_list_* or taiga_resolve_ref, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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