Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds value by disclosing the response structure (grouped items and pagination), which is not in annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the safety profile.

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 three short sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence contributes: scope, resource coverage, and return format. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's relative simplicity, the description fully covers what the agent needs: search scope, target entities, and exact response shape. No output schema exists, so the explicit return format description fills that gap. Annotations cover safety, making this complete.

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 100%: both 'text' and 'project' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description reinforces that 'project' scopes the search, but does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('text search') with a defined scope ('project-scoped') and enumerates the resource types searched (epics, user stories, tasks, issues, wiki pages). It also describes the output structure (grouped by type), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like ref_resolve or entity-specific getters.

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 context: it is for searching across multiple entity types within a project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no other sibling tool provides similar cross-type full-text search, so the intended use is clear. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but context is sufficient.

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