taskhub_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Returns' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it mention any limitations, pagination, or error behavior. A search tool should explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior.

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 concise sentences with the action and key detail (return type) front-loaded, followed by useful examples. No redundant phrasing or fluff.

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 single-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description is adequate but leaves return details vague. It states 'entity type and details' but not the structure of details, whether multiple matches are possible, or how errors are surfaced. An agent might need to infer these from usage.

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 schema already fully documents the 'code' parameter with an example, so the description adds little beyond that. It reinforces the format with additional examples but doesn't clarify ambiguity like whether partial matches are allowed or case sensitivity. Baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 tool searches any entity by systemCode, provides concrete examples, and specifies it returns entity type and details. This distinguishes it from type-specific getters like taskhub_task_get, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this search tool versus the specific entity getter tools (taskhub_task_get, taskhub_project_info, etc.). The use case of 'I have a code but don't know the type' is implied but never stated, and there are no exclusions or context clues.

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