search_circuits

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

The verb 'Find' implies a read-only search, and the description adds library scope and name-based matching. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose pagination behavior, empty-query behavior, or permission/rate-limit context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly identifies the resource and search dimension.

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?

The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description is still incomplete for a two-parameter search tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage. It leaves key invocation details about query and limit undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'query' is a name search term and says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its default of 20.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find circuits, clarified as predefined exercise groups in the library by name. It is clear enough to distinguish from get_recent_circuits and search_exercises, but it does not explicitly name siblings or exclusions.

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 when searching circuits by name, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Agents must infer that get_recent_circuits is for recent items rather than name search.

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