search_compilers

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

The description adds some behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint: it mentions pagination ('page through') and that results include 'current stable alias resolutions.' However, the second sentence about assembly differences is tangential to searching and may confuse the agent about the tool's actual behavior. Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent nature, so the description adds modest value but also introduces noise.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The subsequent sentences ('Compilation tools transmit...' and 'Assembly differences are not performance measurements.') are not directly relevant to searching and add unnecessary length, reducing overall conciseness.

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 a readOnlyHint, an output schema, and simple optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient for a basic search tool. However, the inclusion of unrelated compilation caveats undermines completeness by introducing ambiguity about whether the tool itself compiles code. The description would be more complete if it focused solely on the search behavior.

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 carry the burden of explaining parameters. It only vaguely implies that 'query' is used for searching and 'limit/offset' for pagination. It does not specify what the query matches (e.g., compiler names, aliases) or how pagination behaves. This is weak compensation for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific action (search and page through) on a well-defined resource (C++ compiler IDs and current stable alias resolutions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_libraries and search_analyzers, which target different entity types. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: finding compiler IDs before invoking compilation tools. It even mentions that compilation tools transmit source files to the backend, suggesting this search is a precursor. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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