watchface_template_search

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It clearly indicates the tool performs a search (implies read-only), describes filter behavior (AND/OR semantics), and mentions the output impact of includeWatchface. It does not cover error cases or pagination, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: source, size, tags, best practice, parameter hints, and a usage tip. No wasted words.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the library source, typical use cases, and parameter interactions. It lacks explicit mention of the output structure beyond the note about includeWatchface, but the context is otherwise sufficient for an agent to use the 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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the curated library context, providing example tags, and advising when to use filters (e.g., dispPresent). This extra context elevates the score above baseline.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('curated template library'). It identifies the source path, mentions the ~20 templates and example tags, and distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools by advising to prefer cloning an existing layout over inventing coordinates.

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 explains when to use this tool (searching the template library) and provides guidance on filters, the includeWatchface flag, and best practices ('Prefer cloning...'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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