Search issues

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains search scope (text fields only, avoiding false hits) and optional tag filtering. This is good behavioral context for a search tool. Could mention return format or pagination but not essential.

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 paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Concise with no wasted sentences, though could be broken into shorter sentences for readability.

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 no output schema, description explains what is searched but not the return format. Includes proactive usage advice. Fairly complete for a search tool given sibling tools are not directly comparable.

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 coverage is 67% (query and tags described, project not). Description clarifies query matches specific fields and tags require all. Adds value but does not cover the 'project' parameter, leaving its meaning ambiguous.

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 specifies it searches bug/issue history over specific text fields (symptom, cause, fix, id, tags) across all projects or one, clearly distinguishing from raw JSON search. The verb 'search' and resource 'issue history' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states to call this proactively when a user reports an error or familiar failure, before debugging, to check for prior fixes. Provides context for when to use but does not list alternatives (e.g., other sibling tools) for not using it.

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