run_saved_search

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses that it runs a saved search and returns issues, but lacks details on side effects (likely read-only), permissions, rate limits, or behavior if the saved search does not exist.

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 a single sentence plus a brief args list, which is efficient and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, though the args could be formatted more clearly.

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 presence of an output schema, the description needn't explain return values. However, it could mention that the saved search must exist and that optional instance field is for multi-instance environments. Adequate for a simple tool.

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%, but the description adds basic explanations for parameters: name (partial match), max_results (default), instance (optional). This adds value beyond the schema, but is minimal.

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 ('Run') and the resource ('saved search'), and specifies the output ('return matching issues'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_issues (free-form) and list_saved_searches (listing searches).

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 usage for running a saved search by name, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., search_issues, list_saved_searches). No when-not conditions or exclusions are provided.

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