search_dockstore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieve workflows') without any details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output entails. For a search tool with complex parameters and an output schema, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate and leaves the agent guessing about operational traits.

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 a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded with the basic action but lacks necessary details, making it feel incomplete rather than streamlined. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by omitting key information for a tool of this complexity.

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's complexity (1 parameter with 6 nested properties, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation or annotations, and while the output schema might cover return values, the description fails to explain input semantics, usage context, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool's name—it doesn't explain the 'config' object, its nested properties like 'query', 'top_n', or 'get_files', or how they affect the search. With 1 parameter and 6 nested properties, this is a critical gap that hinders correct tool invocation.

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 '在Dockstore中检索工作流' (Search workflows in Dockstore) states the basic action and resource but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what kind of search (e.g., by metadata, content, or tags) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'fetch_wdl_from_dockstore' or 'import_workflow'. This is a tautological restatement of the tool name without meaningful elaboration.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when searching is needed), or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'fetch_wdl_from_dockstore' and 'import_workflow', there's no indication of how this search tool fits into the workflow lifecycle, making it misleadingly incomplete.

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