capabilities-search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the search spans all of Blender and returns ranked results, which is useful, but it does not describe result format, output shape, or any limitations. For a read-only search tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: scope ('ALL of Blender'), action ('Search'), input ('keyword'), and behavioral cue ('ranked (start here)').

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 simple but has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally clarify what the ranked results look like or how they can be used. It gives enough for an agent to invoke it, but omits some contextual details around result handling and fallback strategies.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate, but it mentions neither query, kind, limit, nor domain explicitly.

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') with a clear resource ('ALL of Blender for a capability by keyword') and notes ranking behavior. It positions itself clearly against siblings like api-search or rna-search by emphasizing broad capability discovery across all of Blender.

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?

'(start here)' implies this is the intended first step for discovering capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like capabilities-describe, api-search, or rna-search. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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