lab.search_toolsFind Agent Enhancer Utilities tools that match a concrete intent. Returns compact machine-readable manifests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | Yes | ||
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the result is a 'compact machine-readable manifest,' signaling that the tool returns metadata rather than performing or invoking tools.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action and output type are front-loaded, and every clause 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 search tool, the description covers purpose and return format, but it omits semantics for the optional category parameter and does not clarify behavior when no matches are found. Given the lack of an output schema, more detail about the returned manifests would improve completeness.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'intent' parameter as a 'concrete intent' for searching, but it gives no guidance on the 'category' parameter, leaving its meaning and possible values entirely unspecified.
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 ('Find') and a specific resource ('Agent Enhancer Utilities tools'), and clarifies the matching criterion ('a concrete intent'). It also states the output type ('compact machine-readable manifests'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lab.list_tools or lab.describe_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 implies the tool is for finding tools from an intent, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as lab.list_tools or lab.describe_tool. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: list, search, and describe serve different discovery needs (broad listing, intent-based search, detailed metadata), while invoke, request, and poll cover execution and capability requests. The slight overlap between list_tools and search_tools is mitigated by clear descriptions and usage guidance.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with the lab prefix, such as invoke_tool, list_tools, and request_capability. The naming is predictable and easy to navigate.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a utility marketplace/agent enhancement server. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: discover, inspect, invoke, request new capabilities, and poll request status. Minor gaps like canceling a capability request or managing usage history are absent, but the main workflows are complete.