search_tabletypes

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. While it mentions searching a specific file, it doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., matches, snippets, full definitions), whether results are paginated (though the schema suggests this), error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information (search action and target). Every word earns its place.

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 operation with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., match details, relevance scores, full definitions), how results are structured, or what happens when no matches are found. For a search tool with three parameters and no output schema, more context about the return value is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (query, page, pageSize). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 the target resource ('tabletypes.txt file for interface tab definitions'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling search tools (e.g., search_iftypes, search_invtypes), which all appear to search different file types in a similar system.

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. With 17 sibling tools including many other 'search_*' tools (e.g., search_iftypes, search_invtypes), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be chosen over similar search tools for different file types.

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