rna.search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the search is 'ranked by relevance', indicating a behavior, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, has side effects, or any rate limiting or error conditions. It is acceptable but lacks depth.

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 12-word sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and the resource. There is no unnecessary information, and every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and many siblings. It does not cover return format, pagination, error handling, or how it differs from similar search tools. It lacks contextual detail needed for correct invocation.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters (query required, kind, limit, category). Although the schema provides titles with examples, the description adds no value for parameter understanding. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated.

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 searches the live Blender API for operators and types matching a query, with ranking by relevance. It distinguishes from siblings like rna.describe and api.search by specifying the resource (live Blender API) and the result type (operators/types).

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 when one needs to find operators or types by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rna.describe or api.search. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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