clawboard_search_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool searches tasks, but omits behavioral traits like case sensitivity, search scope (e.g., what fields are searched), sort order, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a search tool.

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 sentence of five words, containing no filler or redundancy. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core action.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return format, pagination, result ordering, or which task fields are searched. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 'Search tasks by keyword' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (tasks), and adds 'by keyword' to specify the modality. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like clawboard_list_tasks or clawboard_get_task, which may also involve searching. Still, it is more specific than a tautology.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clawboard_list_tasks or clawboard_get_task. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of guidance leaves the agent uncertain about selection.

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