search_todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the searchable fields, but does not disclose return format, pagination, matching behavior (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), or how the caseSensitive parameter affects results. For a search tool, this is a notable gap.

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, well-structured sentence that is easy to skim and front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes meaning with no filler or redundancy.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it leaves gaps such as what the response looks like (e.g., a list of TODOs) and any limitations on result size, which would help the agent invoke the tool with correct expectations.

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 100%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description repeats the scope already captured by the query parameter description ('searches in title, description, and metadata'), adding little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource (TODOs) and the scope (by title, description, or metadata). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_todos (listing all) and get_todo (fetching by ID), making its purpose immediately clear.

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 this tool is for finding TODOs based on text fields, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_todos or get_todo, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly governed.

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