search_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only summaries (not full code), which is key behavioral context. However, it does not describe pagination, rate limits, or search semantics (e.g., exact vs fuzzy match), leaving some 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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides practical usage guidance. It is concise with no unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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's complexity (4 optional parameters, no enums, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and linking to get_component. It could mention that site filters by site, but the output schema likely documents return values. Overall sufficient for the task.

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%, and the description adds no information about individual parameters (kind, site, limit, query). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which provide only minimal guidance. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Search for components' (verb+resource) and adds that it returns only summaries, distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_component which returns code. This provides clear purpose and 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 advises to use get_component for obtaining full code after searching, giving clear when-to-use direction. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the sibling context and this guidance make the intended workflow clear.

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