sd_search_library

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral context that the search is reliable and does not rely on UI state or guessed URLs, which is valuable for an agent deciding how to interact with the environment.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it extremely concise.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description omits input parameter semantics entirely. With four optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the agent cannot reliably compose advanced queries. The description is too skeletal for a search tool with filtering capabilities.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (limit, query, category, identifier). The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for understanding filtered searches. This is a significant gap.

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 the tool's action ('Search resources') and scope ('in currently loaded packages'), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from alternative methods like 'UI scraping or guessed URLs,' which helps separate it from the broader set of sibling 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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to search resources in currently loaded packages. It also explicitly rules out UI scraping and guessed URLs as alternatives, providing directional usage guidance, though it does not name specific sibling tools or list when not to use it.

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