Search tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention that 'Paginates automatically and says so if it hits the cap' and that filters combine, which is valuable. But it omits other relevant behaviors such as default ordering, potential rate limiting, or how results are returned, leaving some gaps in the behavioral profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every phrase earns its place. It conveys purpose, scope, filter semantics, and pagination behavior without any fluff 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description covers the primary use case, scope, filter combination, and pagination behavior. It does not detail the return format or edge cases, but for a query tool with strong schema-level parameter documentation, it provides sufficient context to guide invocation. It is not over-stuffed but leaves a few areas for further clarification.

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 83% (baseline 3). The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: 'Every filter is optional and they combine' clarifies AND logic, and 'Paginates automatically' contextualizes max_pages. These additions go beyond the static parameter descriptions, enriching the model's understanding.

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 'Filtered task query across the entire workspace in one request', which identifies the specific verb (search/filter) and resource (tasks) with a clear scope (entire workspace). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task and get_my_work by emphasizing its role for reports/analytics across all tasks.

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 provides clear context for when to use it ('the tool to build any report or analytics on') and explains that every filter is optional and combines, which helps define its usage. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like 'use get_task for a single task' or stating exclusions, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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