chimerax_script_recipe_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a critical safety trait: this tool does not execute Python code, and describes recipes as static. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens with no results, or any pagination/performance details, so transparency is limited.

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 two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a clarifying note in the second. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, but the description fails to explain the purpose of the 'category' and 'output_kind' parameters, and does not clarify how 'limit' interacts with the query. Given the 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to select correct parameter values confidently.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (query, limit, category, output_kind). The agent is left to infer meanings from names alone. This is a significant gap that the description fails to fill.

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 ('Search') and resource ('bundled ChimeraX Python script recipes'), and clearly distinguishes itself from execution tools by stating 'does not execute Python code.' This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like chimerax_run and chimerax_script_recipe_read.

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 phrase 'Recipes are static examples for trusted runscript workflows' implies a read-only, non-executing use case. The explicit exclusion 'does not execute Python code' tells the agent when not to use this tool, but it does not name alternative tools (e.g., chimerax_run), so it lacks fully explicit alternatives.

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