tasks_search_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful 'READ-ONLY' label and states the intentional limitation to an explicit task list, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose other traits like case-insensitivity (though schema does), return format, or behavior with no matches. It provides some value beyond the schema but not extensive depth.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the critical 'READ-ONLY' label and immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only search tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core purpose and key constraint. It does not explain the return value or pagination, but the simplicity and schema richness reduce the need for more. A brief note on result ordering or defaults could push it to 5, but it's sufficiently complete.

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 100%, with parameter descriptions already explaining the search is case-insensitive, that task_ids are candidates from a narrow list with a 50-item limit, and that global traversal is intentionally not performed. The tool description adds no parameter-related information, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 action (find text in comments) and the specific scope (explicitly passed limited list of tasks), distinguishing it from broader search tools like tasks_search_text. The verb and resource are specific, and the limitation to a provided task list differentiates it from global search.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when you have a specific, limited list of task IDs to search within comments. It also implies not to use it for global searches. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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