Search Issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (search with filters) but does not explain return format, whether all filters are AND/OR, pagination behavior, or any side effects (though search is presumably read-only). The only extra hint is the comparative statement about being 'more powerful than listIssues', which is vague and not a behavioral specification.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each sentence earns its place. It states the essential purpose and a key comparative advantage, with no redundant filler. This is an exemplar of concise, well-structured description.

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?

While the description is concise and the input schema is fully documented, the overall context could be stronger. The tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, but the description does not mention that all filters are optional or how they combine (e.g., AND/OR), nor does it indicate the read-only nature (though 'search' implies it). Given the rich schema and output schema, the description is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps that would help an agent decide on defaults or query semantics.

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 100%, and every parameter (query, status, tagIds, assignee, priority, sprintId, isBlocked, limit) already has a descriptive comment. The description's phrase 'text query and filters' adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'issues' and clarifies the mechanism 'with text query and filters'. It also differentiates from the sibling tool listIssues by stating it's 'More powerful than listIssues for finding specific issues', clearly establishing its distinct purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find specific issues via query/filters rather than just listing all issues. It explicitly names listIssues as an alternative, showing comparative advantage. However, it does not mention when not to use it or other alternatives like getIssue, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guidance.

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