search_libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that searches yield 'valid' pairs and warns that 'Assembly differences are not performance measurements,' offering useful caveats. However, it does not clarify pagination behavior or the relationship between the search backend and compilation, so only modest incremental context is provided.

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, but the second and third sentences ('Compilation tools transmit...' and 'Assembly differences...') are extraneous and unrelated to the search operation, making the description less concise than it should be.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks context on how search results integrate with compile workflows, what makes a library 'valid,' and how the caveat about assembly differences affects usage. The description is adequate for a basic search but insufficient for an agent to make nuanced decisions in the tool ecosystem.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. 'Search and page through' implies limit/offset are for pagination, but it does not specify what 'query' matches (library name, version, both) or how 'exact version-ID' constrains the query. This leaves most parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's action ('Search and page through') and resource (valid C++ library and exact version-ID pairs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_compilers and search_analyzers. However, the subsequent sentences about compilation tools and assembly differences are tangential and slightly obscure the main purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of compilation tools transmitting source files hints at an integration context but does not instruct the agent on selection criteria or exclusions.

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