SearchGenAICDKConstructs

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 does an excellent job describing key behavioral traits: the search uses OR logic, handles variations (singular/plural, spacing), fetches content dynamically from GitHub, supports subdirectory content, and searches across all available content. This provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality. The only minor gap is not mentioning potential rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then explains behavioral characteristics, provides concrete examples, and ends with parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly into the narrative flow rather than appearing as separate labeled sections.

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 (search with flexible matching), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage. It explains the search behavior, parameters, and return format. The only gap is that without an output schema, the description could provide more detail about the structure of the returned dictionary (what fields it contains beyond 'matching constructs and resource URIs').

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It successfully adds rich meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'query' searches by name or description with flexible matching, provides multiple examples of how queries work, and clarifies that 'construct_type' is an optional filter with examples of possible values ('bedrock', 'opensearchserverless'). This completely documents both parameters' semantics and usage patterns.

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 tool searches for GenAI CDK constructs by name or type, providing a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GenAI CDK constructs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'GenerateBedrockAgentSchema' or 'GetAwsSolutionsConstructPattern' by focusing on search functionality rather than generation or pattern retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'CDKGeneralGuidance'), leaving some room for improvement.

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: when searching for constructs by name or description, with optional type filtering. It includes multiple concrete examples that illustrate appropriate use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which would elevate the score to 5.

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