Module Issues Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the ranking algorithm (keyword overlap on titles and bodies), the ordering of results, the link returned with each match, and the version-detection fallback from DRUPAL_ROOT. It omits any note about remote network calls/auth to drupal.org, but overall the behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then mechanism, then parameter guidance. No wasted sentences, though the second sentence is slightly long. Generally tight and well-ordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still adds that each result carries a link. It is largely complete for a search tool, with the only real gap being the undocumented limit and module_name parameters.

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 must compensate. It adds real meaning for problem_description (with an example) and drupal_version (with example and default-detection behavior). However, limit and module_name are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so coverage is only partial.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Search a module's drupal.org issue queue for issues that match a problem.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like module_search and module_get, which operate on module metadata rather than the drupal.org issue queue.

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?

It explains how the search works (keyword overlap scoring) and how to constrain results via drupal_version, which implies when it is useful. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over module_search or other sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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