search_boilerplates

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 states 'Search' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, describe return format, or mention any limitations like pagination or exact-match vs. partial-match behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core purpose.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is purposeful, and there is no filler or redundant content.

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?

For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. It could explicitly mention that it returns matching boilerplates, but given the simplicity and the clear 'Search' verb, the description is nearly complete. The absence of output schema slightly lowers the score from 5.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single query parameter, including a description ('match against name, description, tags, and stack'). The tool description repeats a subset ('name, stack, or tags') but omits 'description,' and does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource 'boilerplates' along with clear filtering criteria ('by name, stack, or tags'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_boilerplates (which lists all), get_boilerplate (fetches one), scaffold_project (creates a project), and check_project_updates (checks updates).

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 implies usage when the agent needs to find boilerplates matching specific criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over list_boilerplates or other alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied by the word 'Search.'

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