Search Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping detail 'all available' and mentions the return content (names and categories), which is partially redundant with the output schema. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matching) are disclosed, but none are required given the low-risk 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, mechanism, and result. There is zero filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 one-parameter search tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and return type in one sentence. No additional prerequisites, caveats, or configuration details are needed.

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 covers 100% of the query parameter with concrete examples ('gerber', 'zone', 'export', 'drc'). The description only says 'by keyword,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Therefore the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Search' with the resource 'all available KiCAD tools' and the method 'by keyword.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tool_categories and get_category_tools by targeting a keyword-based cross-tool search, and from entity-specific searches (search_footprints, search_symbols) by the explicit 'all available KiCAD tools' scope.

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 gives clear context that this is for searching tools by keyword, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. browsing categories or listing all tools. Alternative tools like list_tool_categories are implied but never named, so the guidance is mostly implicit rather than explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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