search_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that matching spans both names and notes and enumerates the supported match modes, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or how the default limit of 50 interacts with large result sets. Adequate but with real gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, purpose front-loaded followed by sibling differentiation and supported modes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, text scope, and match modes, and the schema fills in filtering and limit details. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and pagination, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all seven parameters including projectId, projectName, and includeCompleted are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the match modes verbatim rather than adding semantics like default behavior or interaction with searchIn, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across task names and notes') with clear scope, and distinguishes itself from the sibling filter_tasks by name. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and when it differs from the filter family.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as 'Simpler than filter_tasks for finding tasks by text,' which gives clear positive guidance for choosing this tool. However, it doesn't state the inverse condition — when filter_tasks is the better choice — so the routing is only half-specified.

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