search_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: fuzzy matching, searchable fields (name, tags, author), return type (summaries, not full HTML), and the optional category filter. It also implies ranking via 'top matches.' This is more than minimal and gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior, though it doesn't cover potential edge cases like pagination or sorting details.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action ('Fuzzy search components'), then provide usage context and a note about the optional filter. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly scoped for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns (summaries), when to use it, and an optional parameter. It does not describe the exact structure of the summaries or any potential side effects, but for a read-only search tool, the level of detail is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Slightly more detail on result ordering or fields would push it to a 5.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters (query and category have descriptions). The description adds meaning by clarifying that query matches against name, tags, and author, and that category narrows the search. This directly complements the schema's parameter descriptions. The limit parameter is not explained in the description, but its min/max/default in the schema make it self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds value beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific action ('Fuzzy search'), the resource ('components'), and the search dimensions ('by name, tags, or author'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_components by noting it returns summaries and is meant for style-based queries. The mention of 'no HTML' clarifies the output format, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this when the user asks for a specific style like glowing button, glass card, ripple loader.' This provides strong contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools such as get_component_preview or list_components, so it stops short of full alternative/exclusion guidance.

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