search_tool_library

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. It correctly implies a read-only search operation, but does not state what the result set contains, pagination behavior, default ordering, or behavior when nothing matches. Adequate at a basic level, but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The verb, resource, and search dimensions are presented in order of importance, and no filler or redundancy 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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the burden of documenting return values. However, for a moderate-complexity search tool with siblings and 0% parameter schema coverage, the missing parameter semantics and absence of usage guidance leave the definition incomplete. The description does just enough to signal intent, nothing more.

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 explain the parameters, but it fails to do so. It maps 'task' and loosely 'words' to the query dimension, yet never defines how 'query' relates to 'task', never explains 'limit' (result count is only a guess), and mentions 'tags' and 'trigger descriptions' which have no corresponding parameter in the schema. The agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('reusable cross-project tools'), and the search dimensions ('task, words, tags, and trigger descriptions'). The word 'Search' plus the filtering criteria differentiate it from siblings such as list_library_tools (which enumerates) and read_library_tool (which fetches one specific 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this over sibling tools. With list_library_tools, suggest_library_tools, and read_library_tool in the same library family, there is no statement of exclusions, prerequisites, or the condition that would route an agent to a different tool. Agents are left to infer the distinction.

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