search_networking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only lists example topics and omits any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, pagination). This leaves the agent with no understanding of side effects or constraints.

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, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections). It is front-loaded with the verb, but the content is sparse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 50% parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what the search returns, how results are formatted, or any behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 50% (query described, limit not). The description adds context for query via examples but does not explain the limit parameter. Overall, parameter meaning beyond schema is minimal.

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?

Description clearly states it searches networking topics and provides specific examples (ownership, sync modes, late joiners, serialization), effectively distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_antipattern or search_best_practice.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The examples imply a scope, but the agent receives no direct 'use this for networking, use others for other topics' instruction, which is critical given the many sibling search tools.

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