search_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple search description by revealing that the name must match exactly and that a wrong one fails in a misleading way resembling broken hardware. This is valuable operational context, though it does not describe read-only behavior or return format.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the critical usage warning and exact-match caveat are packed efficiently into the second sentence. Every word contributes.

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 description is largely complete for a simple search tool: it names the resource, explains query semantics, and warns about failure modes. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about the expected return format would fully round it out, but all information needed to call it correctly is present.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds useful conceptual context about what the query can match (part number, manufacturer, core) and warns about exact matching, but this complements rather than extends the schema's parameter definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('device names this J-Link installation accepts'), plus the search dimensions (part number, manufacturer, core). It also connects to set_device, helping distinguish its role from siblings like list_devices.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use this tool before set_device instead of guessing a part number, and warns why guessing is risky. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the relevant alternative tool.

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