lib_search

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

The description is a single declarative sentence with no behavioral disclosure. It lacks any mention of side effects, return format, network requirements, or error behavior. Since annotations are missing altogether, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to provide even basic transparency beyond the tool's 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While there is no verbosity, the brevity omits essential usage and behavior details. It earns a 3 rather than a higher score because conciseness alone is not sufficient if important information is missing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate for invoking it with the correct parameter. However, it does not convey what the search returns (e.g., list of libraries), which an agent would need to decide whether results are actionable. No annotations or output schema compensate, so a 3 is a fair assessment.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'query' parameter with description and example, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so it relies on the schema. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, which is appropriate here.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('Arduino Library Manager'), with the specific mechanism (query string). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like lib_install or core_list. However, it could have explicitly contrasted with these to preempt ambiguity, so it falls short of a 5.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that searching is a precursor to installing, nor does it explain any exclusions or conditions. An agent is left to infer from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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