mattermost_search_posts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait — results are permission-scoped to the current user — but says nothing about result ordering, limits, pagination, or whether an empty result means no match versus no access.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the permission scope is front-loaded. It is efficiently written but under-specified for a three-parameter search operation, so brevity comes partly at the cost of completeness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented boolean, the description should clarify search behavior and result shape; it does neither. An agent can guess how to call it but not what it will get back or how to chain it with mattermost_list_teams for a teamId.

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 only 67%, and the undocumented parameter is the semantically significant one: isOrSearch controls whether terms are OR- or AND-combined, yet neither schema nor description explains it. The description adds no meaning beyond the terms/teamId field hints already in the 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 pairs a specific verb ("搜尋") with a specific resource ("Mattermost posts") and adds scope: only posts the current user is permitted to see. This distinguishes it from retrieval siblings such as mattermost_get_post and mattermost_get_thread, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use search rather than fetching a post or thread directly, no mention that a teamId must be supplied, and no hint about how "terms" is matched. The agent must infer all usage context from the name and schema.

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