Search Devices

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

No annotations or output schema are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses search scope, fuzziness semantics, status filtering, and fallback behavior. It does not describe the exact result envelope or explicitly state read-only safety, but it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's domain, parameter choices, use timing, and fallback paths. The only gap is a precise description of the returned data structure, but the description states that results include devices and modules with function signatures and documentation, which is sufficient for invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing searchable fields and explaining fuzziness levels (0 literal, 1 conservative typo, 2 broader) and when status is relevant. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the right micrOS device and command syntax before run_command.' It enumerates searchable attributes (UID, name, IP, note, module, function, capability) and distinguishes itself from sibling discovery/command tools by focusing on searching cached data to prepare for execution.

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?

Usage context is explicit: use this before run_command. It names alternatives (discover_devices and discover_commands) for missing devices/capabilities and directs the user to search again after discovery. It also clarifies when status filtering matters.

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