search_ui_systems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes input semantics and doesn't disclose likely read-only behavior, result ranking/relevance, output shape, or how filters like noveltyPreference affect results. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it under-discloses.

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 focused sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. The parenthetical examples are numerous but earn their place by clarifying what counts as a valid natural-language query. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries more responsibility. It effectively guides the agent on query phrasing but doesn't describe the return value, ordering, default limits, or how this tool relates to list/get/compare siblings. It is enough for a basic invocation but not fully complete for nuanced tool selection.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the query parameter by explaining that it accepts natural language, keywords, tags, or concepts and giving concrete example queries not present in the schema. Other parameters are adequately covered by their schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search UI systems', and elaborates the query modes (natural language, keywords, tags, concepts) with concrete examples. It clearly conveys a discovery-oriented purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_ui_systems.

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 implies when to use it: when the user wants to find UI systems by concept, style, or description rather than by known identity. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_ui_system for a specific system or list_ui_systems for unfiltered enumeration.

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