search_generator_guidesSearch CordFind for generator cords, plugs, sizing, transfer equipment, maintenance, and safety guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results | |
| query | Yes | Generator topic or question |
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. 'Search' implies a read-only action, but the description does not state whether results are summaries or full documents, how results are ordered, whether pagination exists beyond the limit parameter, or any access expectations.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then compactly lists the searchable domains. There is no redundant phrasing, filler, or repeated schema 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 straightforward search tool with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not explain what the return value looks like or how results are ranked, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
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 the query and limit parameters. The description adds topical context for what can be searched but provides no additional semantic meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or usage beyond what the schema already contains.
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') over a named resource ('CordFind') and enumerates the covered topics: cords, plugs, sizing, transfer equipment, maintenance, and safety. It is clear enough to be distinguished from the sibling calculate_generator_cord_size and get_connector_compatibility tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 given on when to choose this tool over its siblings or when to avoid it. The description implies it is for researching guides, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving routing decisions to the agent's inference.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct concern: sizing wires, checking connector compatibility, and searching guidance. There is no meaningful overlap between calculating cord size, screening compatibility, or retrieving guides.
All tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun structure: calculate_, get_, and search_. The pattern is predictable and clearly indicates each tool's action.
Three tools form a compact, well-scoped set for a focused compatibility and guidance server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy.
The set covers sizing, compatibility screening, and access to topical guides, which handles the primary user journey. Minor gaps exist around direct product-level lookup, but the guides tool compensates and the core domain is well covered.