taiga_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the behavioral scope (searches multiple entity types), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe result format, pagination, or limitations. This leaves noticeable gaps.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action ('Full-text search') and appends the entity coverage parenthetically, which is efficient and easy to scan.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers the main purpose and scope. However, because there is no output schema, the description could ideally mention what the search returns (e.g., list of matching items), but the term 'search' makes this mostly implicit.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage ('Text to search for' and 'Project ID'). The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters themselves, such as text format or project scoping nuance, so it meets the baseline.

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 the specific verb 'search' with a clear resource scope: 'across a project' and enumerates the covered entity types (epics, user stories, issues, tasks, wiki). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are entity-specific CRUD operations.

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 clearly indicates a cross-entity search use case, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like entity-specific list endpoints. Since there is no other search tool among siblings, the usage context is inferred from the entity list rather than explicitly contrasted.

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