search_group_id

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

无注解，描述承担了行为披露责任。它披露了搜索范围包括 SNAPSHOT 和仅源码包，以及每次调用直接搜索当前仓库，但未明确说明只读性、错误处理或返回格式。提供的信息足以推断基本行为，但仍有遗漏。

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?

描述包含多个句子，但每句都有信息量，无冗余。功能、参数用法和后续操作依次说明，结构清晰，没有浪费文字。

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?

无输出 schema，描述说明了返回内容为 groupId 和版本，但未说明返回格式（如列表还是单个）。工具简单，schema 覆盖了参数，但缺少错误场景和性能提示，完整度尚可但非完美。

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 覆盖率 100%，基线为 3。描述在 schema 基础上增加了参数的实际用途说明，如 group_prefix 可缩小扫描范围、version_hint 不确定时省略，提供了超出 schema 的语义价值，因此评 4。

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?

描述明确说明按 artifact_id 在本地 Maven 仓库中查找 groupId 和可读版本，并包括 SNAPSHOT 和仅源码包，动词和资源清晰。与兄弟工具 read_jar_source 用途明显不同，且描述提及了后续使用 read_jar_source，进一步区分。

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?

描述提供了 group_prefix 和 version_hint 的使用提示，包括如何缩小范围和何时省略 version_hint，并说明了每次调用直接搜索当前仓库。虽然未显式提到替代工具，但兄弟工具用途不同，上下文已足够清晰。

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