topbar-command_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior—the search does not open a modal UI—and implies read-only search. However, it does not state what is returned, whether operators are executed, or how matching is performed.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It states the resource (bpy.ops commands) and the key behavioral qualifier in under a dozen words.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter search tool, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete: no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of return values or query semantics. It answers what the tool searches, but little about how to use it or what results look like.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema titles ('Maximum results to return' and 'Command search query') give some context, but the description neither compensates nor clarifies query syntax, matching behavior, or default behavior.

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 identifies a search operation over Blender's bpy.ops commands and adds a distinctive qualifier ('without opening modal UI'). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as api-search or rna-search, so it misses the top end of sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this search versus sibling tools like rna-search, api-search, or capabilities-search, and no exclusion criteria. The 'without opening modal UI' phrase implies it is a non-invoking search, but that is not an explicit when-to-use instruction.

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