themes_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the search functionality and a limit constraint, but lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the search returns (e.g., format, fields). For a search tool with no annotations, 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 short sentences that directly convey the tool's function and key parameter constraint. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and a parameter limit but misses essential context like return format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a search tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 adds meaning by specifying that 'query' is for searching themes and 'limit' is optional with a max of 100, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic types and constraints. However, it doesn't detail query syntax or examples, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 the verb ('Search') and resource ('2slides themes'), making the purpose evident. It specifies searching 'by query' which adds context. However, it doesn't distinguish this search tool from potential sibling search tools (though none are listed among siblings), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an optional limit parameter but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is appropriate or when other tools like 'slides_generate' might be preferred. No explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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