search_bridge_commands

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', which implies a read operation, but it does not explain matching semantics (substring vs exact), how empty filters behave, whether filters combine with AND or OR, or what 'include_sources' and 'registry_path' affect. This lack of behavioral detail leaves important operation semantics undocumented.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's core purpose and primary filter axes, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema, the description is too sparse for a 7-parameter search tool with no parameter schema descriptions and no annotations. Missing usage boundaries, parameter semantics for three fields, and behavior with empty filters mean an agent cannot fully determine how to call this tool correctly.

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%, and the description must compensate for all seven parameters. It mentions 'text, category, status, or mutation class', mapping to only four of the seven fields, and even then without clarifying query semantics. It omits 'limit', 'registry_path', and 'include_sources' entirely, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('TCP bridge command descriptors'), and lists the main filter dimensions. It is clear enough to be distinguished from invocation or summary tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bridge_descriptor_summary or call_bridge_command.

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 implies this tool is for finding command descriptors by filters, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. The intended use is inferable from the word 'Search' and the listed filter axes, but the agent is not told how this relates to summary, list, describe, or call tools.

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