search_todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that search operates 'without direct database access' but fails to describe result ordering, pagination, case sensitivity, or that it is read-only. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose. The phrase 'without direct database access' is vague and adds little value, but overall the structure is clean.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics but omits practical details like result limits, scope (e.g., user's own todos), or any behavioral nuances. It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for misinterpretation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the 'query' parameter. It indicates the query targets titles and notes, adding some meaning, but does not clarify match semantics (partial, case-insensitive, etc.). Partial compensation, but not enough.

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 ('Search') and resource ('task titles and notes'), making the core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_todos, but the search intent is distinct enough from listing tools.

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 implies usage for searching, but does not state when to prefer this over get_todos or other listing tools, nor does it provide exclusions or context about alternatives. Guidance is solely implicit.

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