Fuzzy search for NemoClaw concepts by name or keyword.
Args: query: Partial name or keyword (e.g. 'policy', 'inference', 'agent').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'fuzzy search' but omits whether the tool is read-only, what happens on no matches, or any side effects. This is insufficient.
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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded. Every word adds value.
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 single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks details like result limits or the domain of 'concepts'. It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the parameter 'query' as 'Partial name or keyword' with examples. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare title, helping the agent provide appropriate input.
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 performs fuzzy search for NemoClaw concepts by name or keyword, with examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_nemoclaw (for questions) and query_ckg (for knowledge graph) by specifying the resource type.
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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ask_nemoclaw or query_ckg. The description does not mention exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.