search_cards

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions full-text search and optional scoping, but does not explain case sensitivity, default limit, pagination, ordering, or whether archived cards are included by default (the includeArchived parameter exists but behavior not described).

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 very concise: two sentences with clear, front-loaded information. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover all parameters, explain return format, or provide usage context beyond basic scoping, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains 'query' and the optional scoping of 'workspaceId' and 'boardId', omitting 'limit' and 'includeArchived'. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for these two parameters.

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 that the tool performs full-text search across card titles and descriptions with optional scoping by workspaceId or boardId. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_notes (which searches notes) and list_cards (which lists without full-text search).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_notes) or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites or when scoping is beneficial beyond the optional parameters.

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