pan_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. '搜索' implies a non-mutating operation and '全局' mentions scope, but the description omits whether login is required, how results are returned, and any cross-space behavior details. The agent is left to infer important invocation context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words: it names scope, operation, object, and criterion efficiently. Every word contributes to tool selection and invocation.

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 two-parameter search tool, the schema handles parameter meaning and the description handles overall purpose and scope. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not state the return format or any prerequisite such as prior login, leaving a noticeable but non-fatal gap.

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 100%, with both 'keyword' and 'space' already documented. The description only restates keyword-based search and adds no format, syntax, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('搜索'/'search'), a resource ('文件'/'files'), and a clear global scope ('全局'), with the key criterion ('按关键词'). This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling listing, file-info, and download tools.

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?

'全局搜索' clearly conveys the intended use case: find files across the drive by keyword rather than browsing an individual directory or space. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool.

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