rna-search

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

The description mentions ranking by relevance, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden; it gives minimal but not comprehensive transparency.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the purpose and key behavior without unnecessary detail.

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 sufficient for a search tool: it states what is searched, what is matched, and how results are ordered. While it does not detail the return format or edge cases, the context is adequately complete given the schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 provides descriptive titles for all four parameters (query, kind, limit, category), achieving high schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter explanation, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool's function: searching the live Blender API for operators or types matching a query, with results ranked by relevance. It specifies the resource (API) and the action (search), distinguishing it from other tools like api-search or rna-describe.

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 usage for discovering API elements but does not explicitly contrast with alternative search tools (e.g., api-search, rna-describe). It lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over others, reducing clarity for an agent choosing among similar capabilities.

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