Search module registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context: reads registry.json only, never scans module or pipeline files, never matches descriptions/paths/file contents, no matches yields empty arrays, and results are grouped with protocol hits secondary. This is disclosure well beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filtering behavior, then exclusions and edge cases in one dense block. Every clause earns its place, though the long semicolon-chained sentences are heavier than ideal for quick scanning.

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 single-required-param read tool with an output schema, the description covers matching semantics, edge cases, exclusions, and result shape (grouped modules/protocols). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return-value detail is appropriately left to the output schema.

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% and the schema already states case-sensitive substring semantics, so baseline would be 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying required-ness, that an empty query matches every entry, and by giving concrete examples (M90, 技术文档域包).

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?

States a specific verb (query/search) and resource (NF registry for modules), with explicit scope: id or name contains query. It names the siblings it is not (spec_list for the protocol catalog, library_search for free-text documents), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (resolve a module ID before module_read) plus two named exclusions with their intended alternatives. This is the full when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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