search_toolsSearch the Anagent tool registry. Filter by free-text query (matches name/tagline/description), category slug, and/or interface type. Returns active tools only, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | Free-text keyword search, e.g. 'browser automation' | |
| category | No | Category slug, e.g. 'browsing', 'memory', 'code-execution' | |
| per_page | No | ||
| interface_type | No | Restrict to one interface type |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: 'Returns active tools only, newest first', and explains how the free-text query matches name/tagline/description. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the result structure, but the disclosed behavior is substantive.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause contributes useful information. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 moderate complexity (multiple optional filters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality well: search, filtering, and return ordering. It lacks explicit pagination details and does not describe the response format, but the absence of an output schema makes those less critical. Overall, it provides enough context to use the tool correctly in most situations.
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 description adds value for query semantics ('matches name/tagline/description') and reinforces category and interface_type, which are already described in the schema. However, it does not mention the page and per_page parameters, leaving 40% of the schema (pagination controls) without any additional context from the description. Schema coverage is 60%, so the description only partially compensates.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the Anagent tool registry') and immediately clarifies the scope via filtering and ordering. It naturally distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_tool', which presumably retrieves a single tool.
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 makes the use case clear: this is the tool to search the registry, with optional filters. It does not explicitly mention 'get_tool' as the alternative for fetching a single specific tool, but the context strongly implies it. No exclusions or edge cases are stated, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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.
get_tool fetches a specific record by slug, while search_tools discovers tools via query/filters. Their purposes are distinct with no overlap, so an agent can easily choose the right one.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'get' and 'search' are clear action verbs, and the object 'tool' is used singular/plural appropriately. Naming is predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal but not inappropriate: a read-only registry requires only search and retrieve-by-id. Still, it's on the thin side compared to typical servers.
The registry covers the core read operations: discovery (search) and detailed retrieval (get). Missing write operations (create/update/delete) suggest an intentional read-only scope, but there's no dead end for typical use cases. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit list-all mechanism, though search likely handles it.