bus_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Search" suggests a read operation, but the description does not confirm read-only behavior or explain matching, result ordering, access scope, or pagination.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and efficiently communicates the searchable resource types. There is no unnecessary wording.

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?

This is adequate for basic selection of a simple two-parameter search tool, but gaps remain because there are no annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions. The agent still lacks information about result contents, search visibility, and result-limiting behavior.

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 0%, and "by text" provides only basic meaning for query. The description does not explain query syntax or matching behavior, and it adds nothing about how limit affects results beyond the schema's name, type, and default.

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 gives a specific verb, resource scope, and method: searching messages, tasks, and shared files by text. This is clear alongside the list and inbox siblings, although it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 wording implies use when the agent has a text query rather than merely wanting to browse resources. It does not state when to prefer alternatives such as bus_inbox, bus_list_tasks, or workspace_list_files, nor any when-not guidance.

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