zadig_service_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose how matching works (exact vs fuzzy), whether project_key or production scope results, or what happens with an empty query. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 fluff. It clearly communicates the core action and resource quickly. The slight ambiguity in the list 'service, container, image name or image' prevents a perfect score, but overall it is concise.

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 annotations, three optional parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks enough context to know how production and project_key affect the search, whether filters are required, or how to construct a meaningful query. The existing output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the input behavior is under-specified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains that 'query' can match service, container, image name, or image, but it says nothing about the meaning or effect of 'production' and 'project_key'. Two of three parameters remain semantically unexplained.

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'), a specific resource ('Zadig K8s YAML services'), and the search dimensions (service, container, image name, image). It is clear and reasonably distinct from sibling tools, but 'by service' is slightly ambiguous and no differentiation from zadig_service_get is stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as zadig_service_get or zadig_environment_service_list. No usage context, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this search is appropriate.

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