Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: it does not mention that results are paginated (limit/offset exist), how the scope parameter defaults, whether the search is read-only, or what determines which resource types are returned. The single sentence adds zero behavioral context.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, so it is not bloated, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single six-word sentence cannot earn its place as the only documentation for a 14-parameter tool.

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 14-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate. Although an output schema exists (so return structure need not be explained), nothing about filtering, scoping, or pagination is covered, leaving the agent unable to configure the search 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 0% across 14 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. Critical semantics such as the meaning of scope, the boolean resource-type toggles, all_words, titles_only, open_issues, limit, and offset are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Search') and a broad resource domain ('Redmine resources'), so an agent knows the general operation. However, it never says which resource types are searchable (issues, news, wiki_pages, documents, changesets, messages), all of which are exposed as parameters, and offers no differentiation from the sibling list/get tools beyond the verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or scope defaults, and no mention of when a sibling such as list_issues would be preferable. An agent must infer everything about invocation context from the name alone.

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