objectives-search

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

The description lacks behavioral details such as read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or limits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose key traits.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient. However, it may be too terse given the complexity of the tool, but it avoids unnecessary verbiage.

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 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value format, pagination behavior, or how to combine filters, leaving significant 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?

The input schema covers all 16 parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Find', which is a baseline score. No param-specific enhancement is provided.

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 action ('Find') and the resource ('objectives'), which is specific to Shortcut. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like epics-search or stories-search, as the term 'objectives' is unique enough but could be more descriptive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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