search_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. While it mentions 'relevance ranking', it does not explain the ranking mechanism, whether results are sorted, or what fields are searched beyond title/description/content. It also lacks details on side effects (none, read-only), auth, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond a limit parameter.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output. No extraneous or redundant information is present, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 insufficiently complete. It does not specify return field details (e.g., which task fields are returned), search behavior nuances (e.g., exact vs fuzzy matching), or how to interpret the relevance ranking. A more comprehensive description would address these 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds 'relevance ranking' context but does not elaborate on how each parameter affects search behavior beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not explain how the 'project' filter interacts with the search or whether 'include_archived' overrides the default filtering.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search tasks by keyword in title, description, or content. Returns matching tasks with relevance ranking.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and specifies the scope of search and output format, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks (which returns all tasks) and search_docs (which searches documents).

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 for keyword-based task search but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_docs, search_project, or get_task. It lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information, relying on implied context from the tool name and sibling set.

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