search_sdk_feature

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 conveys intent as a search operation but says nothing about what results look like, how matching works, whether sdkVersion changes behavior, or any limitations. The read-only nature lowers risk, but transparency is thin.

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 trigger, and uses a clear WHEN/HOW structure. Every clause earns its place and the inline examples improve scannability without adding fluff.

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 WHEN/HOW framing and feature examples are enough to start using a simple search tool, but there is no information about result shapes, sdkVersion usage, or how this differs from the many sibling search tools. It is minimally adequate with notable gaps.

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 only 33%, with query described and limit/sdkVersion effectively undocumented. The description adds feature examples but does not explain the meaning or effect of limit or sdkVersion, so it fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 makes clear this is a search tool aimed at SDK features, with concrete examples like NetworkCallable and PlayerData. It does not state the action in a plain declarative sentence and does not explicitly contrast sibling tools, but the resource and verb are inferable.

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 WHEN clause gives a crisp trigger—use it when unsure whether a feature exists or how it works—and the HOW clause directs the agent to search before coding. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many sibling search tools, but the context is clear enough.

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