search_namelist_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'substring' but does not specify case sensitivity, pagination, result limits, or ordering. For a search tool, these are important gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence of 8 words, but it omits critical details about parameters and behavior. It is too brief to be considered well-structured for an agent.

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 output schema exists (though not shown), the description should at least hint at return values or fields. It does not mention output format. The missing 'group' parameter explanation and lack of behavioral details make it incomplete for a search tool with 2 parameters.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must add meaning. It implies 'query' parameter exists but completely ignores the optional 'group' parameter, leaving its purpose unexplained. The meaning of parameters is insufficiently conveyed.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'namelist options', and the method 'by name/description (substring)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_namelist_options (listing all) and get_namelist_option (retrieving a specific one).

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 implies usage for substring matching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like semantic_search or code_search, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks guidance on context.

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