commons_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search purpose and filter axes; it does not mention returning results, pagination, read-only safety, permissions, or any operational behavior beyond the act of searching.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized for a simple search tool, though its brevity leaves some behavioral and usage gaps.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent should expect from invoking the tool. It does not describe return shape, scope of results, or any constraints. The schema covers parameters well, but the description is too thin to be fully actionable on its own.

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 baseline is 3. The description's tag/keyword/type phrasing loosely maps to tag/query/kind but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents, such as tag priority over query.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('检索' = retrieve/search), a resource ('能力公地' = capability commons), and the three filter dimensions (tag/keyword/type). It is clear on its own but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_capabilities or search_knowledge.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as list_capabilities or search_knowledge overlap conceptually, yet the description offers no exclusions, conditions, or routing hints. The only usage clue is the implied filtering behavior in the description.

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