search_tasks

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's word 'Search' aligns with that. The description adds the cross-project scope but does not disclose behavior like result ordering, pagination, or how filters interact. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's core purpose and key constraint. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It omits useful invocation details such as how search text and filters combine, what task fields are matched, and what the response contains. Still, the schema provides parameter names and the annotation confirms read-only safety, so the tool is callable with moderate confidence.

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 only 17%, and the description itself adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond 'selected projects' pointing at project_gids. It does not explain text search semantics, the completed filter, assignee filtering, or modified_after behavior, all of which would help an agent use the tool correctly.

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 action ('Search'), a specific resource ('tasks'), and the key scope boundary ('across up to 25 selected projects'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_task and search_comments without ambiguity.

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 gives enough context to infer when to use this tool: when you need to find tasks across one or more selected projects. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the routing decision is left mostly to the agent.

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