search_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility. It discloses key behavioral traits: case-insensitive substring match across specific fields, the lightweight summary return shape, and the absence of history[]. It also indicates a read-only operation implicitly. This is helpful but does not cover potential pagination or ordering behavior.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and adds crucial details about the return shape and follow-up tool. Every word earns its place without 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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it does and what it returns. It references list_tasks for the summary shape and get_task for full data. It could mention result limits or ordering, but these are not critical for a basic search. Overall, it is a complete and useful description.

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 only defines 'query' as a string with a minimum length, providing no description. The description fully compensates by explaining that the query is matched against task titles, descriptions, and tags, and that matching is case-insensitive substring-based. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it performs full-text search over task titles, descriptions, and tags with a case-insensitive substring match. It also distinguishes itself from list_tasks by clarifying the return shape (same lightweight summary, no history[]) and directly points to get_task for full records.

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 clear context: use this for searching by text, and call get_task for full detailed records. It implicitly differentiates from list_tasks by focusing on search over listing. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond get_task.

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