AgentBase MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'matching instruction files with metadata,' which implies a read-only search operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the metadata includes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage context, with zero wasted words. Every phrase ('Search the OpenClaw agent instruction registry,' 'Returns matching instruction files with metadata,' 'Use this to find...') directly contributes to clarity and guidance, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and usage context well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., response format, error cases) and doesn't compensate for the missing output schema. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps in providing a full operational picture.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax for 'q' or elaborate on 'min_quality' beyond the schema's 'Recommended: 80'). Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Search') and resource ('OpenClaw agent instruction registry'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns 'matching instruction files with metadata' rather than getting featured items, single instructions, or listing categories. It provides concrete examples of what can be found (system prompts, skills, workflows, etc.), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to find system prompts, skills, workflows, domain packs, safety filters, and orchestration patterns'), which implicitly suggests alternatives like the sibling tools for other purposes (e.g., get_featured for featured items). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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