VaneTools AI Directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it hints at return richness ('full structured details') and that one slug works across all types, but never states this is a read-only, non-mutating lookup, nor what happens on an invalid type/slug pair. It discloses the search-then-fetch pattern but omits failure and permission behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the action and keys come first, the supported types second, and the prerequisite third. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does have to signal the return value, and 'full structured details' does that at a high level. For a two-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema, the only meaningful gap is the unstated read-only nature and error behavior.

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% and the schema already documents both 'slug' (from search tools) and 'type' (with an enum), so the description adds little beyond restating 'type + slug'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the semantic work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full structured details for one resource') plus the required key ('by type + slug'), which is precise. It enumerates all supported resource types, but never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_tool, leaving a small ambiguity about which retriever to pick.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite workflow: 'Use the search_* tools first to find the slug,' which tells the agent this is a second-step retrieval after search. It does not say when-not to use it or contrast with get_tool, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned payload (the field list), which substitutes for the absent output schema, but omits error behavior for an invalid/unknown slug, whether it is strictly read-only, pagination, and any rate limits.

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 sentences, zero waste: the payload scope is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. Nothing is repeated from the schema beyond the minimal 'by slug' anchor.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the slug-discovery precondition. Only the unknown-slug failure mode and read-only confirmation are missing, which are minor gaps at this complexity.

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% and the schema already defines the single slug parameter with an example ('chatgpt'). The description adds only 'by slug', so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one tool by slug') and enumerates exactly what is retrieved (description sections, features, categories, website, pricing model, last-verified date). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_* tools, which return lists rather than full records.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use search_tools first to find the slug,' naming the alternative and the prerequisite step. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., for bulk retrieval or slug-free lookup), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the returned fields (slug, name, tagline, category, website, detail page URL), which compensates for the missing output schema, but says nothing about pagination, default result count, rate limits, or that the operation is non-mutating.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the return-shape detail follows immediately, earning its place because no output schema exists.

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 3-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the corpus searched and previews the response fields in lieu of an output schema. Only the lack of any usage/routing context keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, including the enumerated category slugs and the limit bounds/default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which makes 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search VaneTools' curated MCP server directory.' The scope ('MCP server directory', with the MCP expansion) is clear enough to separate it from search_plugins/search_tools/search_prompts, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say to prefer this over search_plugins/search_tools, nor does it state any precondition. Usage can only be inferred from the verb.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It helpfully enumerates the return fields (slug, name, tagline, category, website, detail URL), but says nothing about auth requirements, result ordering, or pagination behavior even though a limit parameter exists.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the return-value list. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is a somewhat mechanical field enumeration.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing returned fields, and the schema covers all parameters. Remaining gaps (pagination, result ordering, query matching defaults) are minor for a simple search 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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit and category fully, including the category slug list. The description's mention of category in the return fields adds only marginal context beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (VaneTools plugin directory, editor and agent plugins), which is distinguishable from siblings like search_mcp_servers, search_tools and search_skills by the 'plugin' resource. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those sibling search tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions. With seven sibling search/get tools available, the description offers nothing to help the agent choose search_plugins over search_tools or search_mcp_servers.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (slug, name, tagline, category, detail page URL) which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about result ordering, matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy), pagination, or empty-result handling, which are the open behavioral questions for a search tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and followed by the return fields. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 three-parameter search with full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose and return fields adequately. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any ranking or matching-behavior note, which matters somewhat for a keyword search 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 100%, so all three parameters (query, limit, category) are already documented in the schema, including the category slug enum values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus resource (VaneTools curated prompt library) and enumerates the domains covered, so the agent knows this targets prompts rather than servers, plugins, or resources. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like search_resources or search_tools, but the 'prompt library' scope is distinctive enough for correct selection.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the six sibling search tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the prompt-domain search purely from the resource noun.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields (slug, name, tagline, category, detail page URL), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ranking, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or authentication.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing returned fields, and the schema fully covers inputs. However, for a search tool among six sibling search tools, the absence of any routing guidance or result-ranking behavior leaves a real gap.

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%, with query, category (including enumerated category slugs) and limit all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search VaneTools' AI learning resources') and enumerates the content types covered (tutorials, guides, handbooks, courses). It clearly separates itself from search_tools/search_plugins by naming its domain, though it never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate from.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_tools, search_skills, or the other search siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the choice purely from the domain noun in the first sentence.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return fields (slug, name, tagline, category, detail page URL), which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, result limits, or match semantics beyond 'keyword'.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the resource scope is front-loaded and the return payload is stated second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information an agent needs. It is only slightly short of complete because it omits result-count/pagination behavior and any scoping caveat on the query field.

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%, so all three parameters (query, limit, category) are already documented in the schema, including the category enum values and the default limit. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and a specific resource (VaneTools Agent Skills directory), with a parenthetical defining what a skill is. The resource is clearly different from the siblings' plugins/prompts/tools, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like search_plugins, search_prompts, search_mcp_servers and search_tools all present, nothing tells the agent which search to pick for a given user request, nor any prerequisite for using this one.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it partially meets it by disclosing corpus size (~34k tools) and the exact fields returned, which matters because no output schema exists. It is silent on read-only behavior, pagination (limit default 10), rate limits, or result ranking, so behavioral disclosure is incomplete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and corpus, then the return shape. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

Since there is no output schema, describing the returned fields (slug, name, tagline, category, website, detail URL) is genuinely necessary and present. Coverage is still slightly short on selecting this over sibling search tools and on result volume/paging defaults.

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 query, limit and category are already documented in the schema, including the category slug list. The description adds no syntax, matching semantics, or caveats beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (the VaneTools bilingual AI tools directory, ~34k tools), and the resource is clearly distinct from the sibling directories search_mcp_servers, search_plugins and search_prompts. An agent can tell what corpus this queries without opening the schema.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative sibling. It does not say how this differs from get_tool (detail lookup) or from the other search_* tools, leaving routing to inference from the name alone.

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