Search Worklet Catalog

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful details about the return data (worklet names, descriptions, categories, OS compatibility). No contradictions; the description complements the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and includes specific return fields. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and return fields but omits details about searching with a query or the output_format parameter. An output schema exists, which helps, but the description could be more complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 does not explain the parameters (query and output_format) or their roles. With 0% schema coverage, the description should have provided parameter guidance, but it omits this entirely.

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 the Automox community worklet catalog and returns specific fields (names, descriptions, categories, OS compatibility). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_org_packages by specifying the community catalog and pre-built scripts.

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 says 'Use to discover pre-built evaluation and remediation scripts,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is well-communicated.

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