Search the tool catalogue

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses that the tool never dispatches to the engine, never needs the write gate, needs no After Effects, and filters an in-process registry. It also describes the reply envelope (`matched`/`returned`/`truncated`) so a caller can detect truncation, and warns that `"full"` is a genuine substitute for `tools/list` rather than a paraphrase.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the core constraint, then uses a clear per-detail-level breakdown. However, some material is rationale rather than operational — the internal reference 'design-layered-tool-exposure section 3.4 / P3' and the defensive restatements ('it cannot disagree with tools/list', 'would make the profile meaningless') cost space without changing agent behavior.

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?

For a 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of parameters, the description covers selection semantics, parameter meaning, the hard scope limit, side-effect profile, and the shape of the return metadata. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret a truncated result.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning — and it does: `query` is a case-insensitive substring of name OR description, `family` filters on classification family with the special value `"offline"`, `limit` defaults to 20 with `limit=0` meaning no limit, and `detail_level` has all three values explained with their cost tradeoffs. This is exactly the compensation the low schema coverage requires, including an implicit enum the schema does not declare.

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 ('List or search the tools the ACTIVE profile exposes') plus the scope qualifier 'ACTIVE profile' and the three detail levels. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming `ae_system_profile_set` as the way to reach tools outside the current profile.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('this tool is how it looks BEFORE widening, instead of guessing a name and getting `unknown_tool`') and an explicit alternative for the excluded case ('Switch with ae_system_profile_set first to reach anything else'). It also articulates the when-not boundary: 'IT CANNOT SEARCH PAST THE ACTIVE PROFILE'.

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