wetrack_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses weighted relevance ranking and per-category result limits, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, or describe behavior on empty results.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line summary of purpose followed by a tight Args list. Every line adds information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 output schema exists and the description covers query syntax, search scopes, project filtering, and limits, the tool is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The provided examples for ticket codes and keywords further reduce ambiguity.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates: it documents all four parameters with meanings, examples, valid scopes, defaults, a UUID expectation for project_id, and a 1-20 range for limit. This adds significant value beyond the bare input 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 a specific action ('Global search') and the exact resources covered: tickets, projects, sprints, and users. This distinguishes it from list/get siblings by emphasizing cross-entity search with weighted relevance ranking.

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 when to use it (cross-entity keyword or ticket-code search) and provides scope options, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer a list/get tool or when not to use this search. No alternative sibling tools are named.

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