search_projects

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the matching behavior (case-insensitive substring) and that it returns projects, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, safety implications, or behavioral constraints such as pagination or limits, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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?

Two brief sentences with no redundant wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: first defines scope and matching, second states return type.

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 single-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states what it searches, how it matches, and what it returns. Minor gaps like pagination or result limits are not addressed, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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% (the 'query' parameter has a description). The description adds extra semantics by explicitly noting 'case-insensitive substring match', which goes beyond the schema's 'matches titles and content'. This clarifies the exact matching behavior, adding meaningful context.

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 verb 'search', the resource 'projects', and the scope 'across all projects'. It specifies the matching criteria (case-insensitive substring on titles and section content) and the return type (matching projects). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_tasks and search_journal.

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 by naming 'all projects', but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusionary criteria. The sibling tool names give context, but the description itself offers no guidance on when to prefer this over similar searches.

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