search_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals that results are vector stencils with style and size suitable for node objects, which is useful, but it does not describe any limitations, output details, or whether the operation is read-only. The extra context about style/size adds some value beyond the bare tool name.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core resource and purpose. The second sentence is a useful routing instruction with no wasted words; every phrase 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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the main use case and the GPC icon alternative. However, it leaves parameter semantics to inference, which is a real gap for an agent trying to invoke search_shapes correctly with query values.

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 does not explain the query parameter or the limit parameter. The list of stencil families gives a rough sense of what query terms might be, but there is no explicit guidance on query format, accepted values, or how limit behaves.

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 identifies the resource (vector stencils for AWS, Azure, Cisco, BPMN, UML, networks, P&ID) and how results are meant to be used (as a node with style, w, and h). It does not state an explicit search/return verb, but the tool name and the provided use context make the operation clear. It also differentiates from search_icons by routing GCP icon needs to that sibling.

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?

It gives explicit guidance to use search_icons for GCP icons, which is a clear when-not-to-use-this-tool signal. The listed stencil categories imply the intended use cases, though it does not mention other sibling alternatives or broader exclusion conditions.

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