Search snippets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are paged via nextCursor and must be re-invoked with that cursor, and the payload contains summaries rather than code. It omits default/max page size behavior, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: capability first, return/pagination behavior second, sibling hand-off last. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 six optional parameters, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description still conveys what is returned (summaries plus a cursor) and how to paginate, which is the critical missing context. The undocumented limit and the absence of any default page size are the remaining, minor gaps.

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 carry the burden, and it does for most parameters: query (which fields, all-words semantics), tags, language, collection, and cursor (how to use it for the next page). Only limit is left undefined; its name and 1-100 bounds make it largely self-evident, but the omission is a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find your live snippets") and then enumerates exactly what is searched: title, description, tags, file paths and code. The word-match semantics ("every word must match") and the phrase "live snippets" further narrow the resource, and the closing sentence separates it from read_snippet.

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?

Explicitly routes code retrieval to read_snippet ("Use read_snippet to fetch code"), which is the main ambiguity among these siblings. It also warns that matching is conjunctive across words. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or of a browsing-only alternative, so it falls short of a full 5.

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