search_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is a pre-flight constraint check and warns about the consequence of skipping it, but it does not describe the return format, whether the operation is read-only, or what a successful check looks like.

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 compact, front-loaded with the critical WHEN instruction, and every sentence adds value: when to use it, how to use it, and why it matters. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool with the required query parameter, and the schema covers the optional limit. It does not describe the output format, but for a constraint-search tool the key contextual information about when and why to use it is present.

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 query parameter is clearly explained with examples (List<T>, Coroutine, LINQ), and the tool description reinforces what kinds of values to search for. The limit parameter is not described in prose, but its schema provides default, minimum, and maximum, so the agent still has enough information to use it.

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 that the tool checks constraints before using any C# feature in UdonSharp, with concrete examples like List<T>, Coroutine, and LINQ. This makes the tool's purpose specific and distinct from siblings that cover general documentation, topics, rules, or examples.

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 an explicit 'WHEN' instruction: use it before any C# feature in UdonSharp, and warns that skipping it causes invalid Udon. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of full routing guidance.

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