searchSearch public agent resources. Returns exact resource ids and canonical browser-openable URLs for citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Natural-language or keyword query for public SuperSkill resources. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by stating returns include exact resource ids and URLs for citation. This gives useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it omits details like result limits or ordering.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the action and return value. Every word contributes meaning without 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 simplicity (one param, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete: it covers what is searched and what is returned. It could mention result count or pagination but output schema likely handles that.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no examples or query format hints).
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 it searches 'public agent resources' and specifies return values (resource ids and canonical URLs). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_resources' or 'search_harnesses', which may overlap in scope.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_docs, search_resources). The description does not mention when-not to use it or provide selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among search variants (search, search_resources, search_harnesses) and between fetch and resource_detail, which could cause confusion.
Naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies such as 'publish_markdown_to_harness' being longer and 'resource_use_instructions' having a different structure.
12 tools is appropriate for a registry server, covering search, fetch, publish, and pull operations without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers core operations (search, fetch, publish, pull) but lacks update and delete functionalities, which are minor gaps for a registry.