search_logic_definitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the user about search scope and return type (operators and location) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, its performance characteristics, or any side effects like network calls. For a search tool, this is adequate but not rich in detail.

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 three sentences and efficiently front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by scope details and usage guidance. Each sentence contributes distinct information without redundancy, though a slightly more condensed phrasing could improve it further.

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 a single parameter with no enums, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the search behavior, parameter semantics, and usage context. It explains what fields are searched and how the empty query works, which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in the context of understanding logic implementations.

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 has 1 parameter (query) with 0% description coverage and no schema-level descriptions, so the description must compensate. The description explains the query parameter well: it matches on class name, docstring, and filename, and states that an empty query returns all entries. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's default field.

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 for differentiable logic implementations, specifying the search scope (class name, docstring, filename) and what it returns (operators and location). This is specific and distinguishable from siblings like get_results or run_experiment, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, explicitly stating 'Use this to understand what a logic does before interpreting a result or proposing a run that uses it.' This gives actionable guidance on the tool's role in the workflow, though it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives explicitly.

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