run_saved_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: partial match on name, default max_results of 50, and optional instance. It does not disclose exact output format (though an output schema exists) or empty-result/error behavior, so extra context is modest.

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: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args list. Every part earns its place, the main action is front-loaded, and there is no unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a three-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 simple read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers the invocation essentials: partial-match name, default max_results, and optional instance. It does not mention how to discover saved search names via list_saved_searches or what happens if no search matches, leaving a small gap for an unfamiliar caller, but overall it is nearly complete.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters in the Args block: name (partial match), max_results (default 50), and instance (optional). This directly helps an agent supply correct values and is exactly what the schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('saved search'), and clarifies the outcome ('return matching issues'). It distinguishes from raw query tools like search_issues because it operates on a named saved search. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, so it misses the highest level of differentiation.

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 the tool is for running pre-configured saved searches rather than ad-hoc queries, and notes partial match on the name. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs. search_issues' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor a pointer to list_saved_searches for discovering available names. It is a functional statement rather than a clear decision guide.

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