bolt_registry_search_mount

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a side-effecting mount plus contract rerun. It adds useful context about the state change, but omits what happens if the slot is not PENDING, whether the mount persists, and whether the rerun can fail or modify state.

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 compact sentence with the search action front-loaded and the optional mutation trailing. No wasted words, though the density of unexplained jargon slightly hurts immediate comprehension.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and a mid-operation mutation, the description should say what search returns and what the mount/rerun produces or errors on. Neither is covered, leaving an agent unable to predict outcomes of the optional mount path.

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 only 33% (only projectPath is documented), so the description carries extra burden. It implies mountSlotId targets a 'declared PENDING slot' and query drives the catalog search, but it does not explain how the specific result to mount is chosen or that mountSlotId is optional and pattern-constrained.

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 names two concrete operations — searching the local catalog and optionally mounting a result into a PENDING slot with a contract rerun — which distinguishes it from siblings like bolt_verify_slot and bolt_registry_promote. It is clear but relies on domain jargon ('declared PENDING slot', 'contract') that an unfamiliar agent must infer.

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 word 'optionally' implies a search-only mode versus a search-and-mount mode, giving implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over bolt_registry_promote or bolt_verify_slot, nor what prerequisites make a slot eligible for mounting.

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