library_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the non-obvious behavior that matching happens against folders, file names, and saved metadata (app, tags, source). It says nothing about matching semantics (whether multiple words are ANDed or ORed), result ordering, or whether search is case-insensitive, which matters for a word-based search.

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 no filler; the verb and scope come first. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool, though the compactness contributes to the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 read-only search with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is searched but omits matching semantics and result ordering. Adequate to invoke correctly, but an agent would need to experiment to predict results.

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 coverage is 50%: limit is documented in the schema, but query has no description. The description compensates by explaining that query terms are matched against folders, file names, and metadata, which is real added meaning. It still doesn't clarify multi-word behavior or whether limit truncates results silently.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (local UI library) and scopes the match targets to folders, file names, and saved metadata. The only gap is that the sibling search_ui is never mentioned, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which search tool applies.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — you use it to find items in the local library — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to search_ui, which is a near-identical sibling name. An agent must infer the boundary.

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