search_md_scenarios

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 does so well: it declares that the tool does not mutate the MD scene, it warns about a required local index, and it cautions that documentation can lag the runtime. These are meaningful, non-obvious behavioral traits that an agent needs to know.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second states the non-mutating behavior, and the third states the prerequisite and a caveat. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 simplicity (2 params, no annotations, output schema available), the description is largely complete: purpose, safety, prerequisite, and staleness warning are all present. It would be slightly stronger if it mentioned what happens when the local index is missing or how results are limited, but no critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not: 'query' is implied by 'Search' but not explained, and 'limit' is not mentioned at all, including any semantics like default behavior, maximum values, or ordering. The tool name and schema field names carry most of the meaning here.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a well-defined resource ('official Pattern, Simulation, Animation and Substance scenarios'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling documentation-related tools such as search_md_docs and get_md_doc, even without naming them.

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 gives clear context for use: it searches official scenarios and explicitly notes that it does not mutate the MD scene. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires local index: md-mcp update-docs'), which helps an agent know when the tool can be invoked. However, it does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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