Search Worklet Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations by detailing the returned signals (verified, access tier, license_required) and noting that catalog items have no status field. No contradictions.

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 long, front-loading the core action and return fields, followed by a usage phrase. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 readOnly and idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description lists key return fields and a behavioral note (no status field). It lacks pagination details but is otherwise complete for discovering worklets.

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 description coverage is 0% with two parameters (query, output_format). The description does not explain their meaning or usage, relying solely on the schema. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter values.

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 lists specific return fields (names, descriptions, categories, OS compatibility, trust/availability signals). The verb 'search' and resource 'community worklet catalog' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like search_org_packages.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use to discover pre-built evaluation and remediation scripts.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or offer alternatives, though the purpose is well-defined.

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