Yougile Find Tasks

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description does not need to warn about destructive behavior. It adds behavioral value by explaining the default-project fallback and the eventual whole-company search scope. It stops short of describing return format or pagination, but that is a minor gap given the read-only annotation.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and then clarify the fallback scope. There is no filler, no restating of schema defaults, and every word 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 description covers the primary search intent and default-scope behavior, which is enough for basic use. However, with no output schema, it omits what the caller should expect back, and behaviors like status defaults and limit handling live only in the schema, leaving moderate gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 75%, which is below the high threshold, so the description should compensate somewhat. It does summarize the main filterable dimensions (project/board/column, assignee, title words) but adds little beyond the schema for limit, status, include_archived, or how 'me' resolves for assignee.

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 verb ('find'), resource ('tasks'), and the main filtering criteria (project/board/column names, assignee, title words). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling yougile_tasks, so the agent must infer the difference, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 useful context about fallback scope: without a place, it uses the default project or the whole company. However, it never mentions when to prefer this over yougile_tasks or any other sibling, leaving the when-to-use guidance implied rather than explicit.

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