search_components

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. 'Search components by task' gives minimal insight into what the tool actually does - it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated or rate-limited, or what format the results take. The description provides almost no behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 maximally concise - a single 4-word phrase. There's zero waste or redundancy. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description itself is perfectly structured and front-loaded with the essential action.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, this description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to provide necessary context about what 'components' are, how the search works, or when to use this versus other component-related tools. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool selection.

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 description mentions 'by task' which hints at the 'query' parameter's purpose, but with 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters nested within the 'input' object (query, top_k, component_type), this minimal hint is insufficient. The description doesn't explain what 'task description' means for the query, what 'component_type' filtering entails, or how 'top_k' affects results. It adds marginal value but doesn't compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 'Search components by task' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'search_components' with minimal elaboration. While it specifies 'by task' as a search criterion, it doesn't clarify what 'components' are in this context or what kind of search results to expect. Compared to siblings like 'get_component_detail' or 'install_components', the differentiation is minimal.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might relate to components (get_component_detail, install_components) and search/discovery operations (discover_repos, run_discovery_pipeline), but the description offers no context about when this specific search tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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