gh_components_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so behavioral safety is covered. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (rows with fields like guid, name, category, etc.) and summary block. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second paragraph provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated), the description covers the return structure adequately. It mentions the key fields and summary block, making the tool's behavior predictable. No gaps for a search operation.

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?

The description does not add any parameter-level guidance beyond what the input schema already provides. The schema itself has detailed descriptions for each parameter (limit, query, plugin, category). With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Grasshopper component catalog (built-in + plugin-supplied). It specifies the action (search) and resource (component catalog), and distinguishes from sibling tools like gh_add_component, gh_component_list, etc., by focusing on searching for GUIDs.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool to find the GUID needed for gh_add_component before dropping a component. This provides clear usage context. It doesn't mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for the search purpose.

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