search_soundtypes

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 states the tool searches a file, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination (though hinted in schema), error handling, performance, or what the search results look like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by hinting at the context or output.

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 complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of definitions, partial matches), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., case sensitivity). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (query, page, pageSize). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('search') and target resource ('soundtypes.txt file for sound effect definitions'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling search tools (e.g., search_iftypes, search_invtypes) beyond specifying the file name, which is somewhat helpful but not fully differentiating.

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 like search_data_file or other search_* tools. It mentions the specific file 'soundtypes.txt', but doesn't explain why one would search this file over others or what context warrants its use, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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