Search the gallery

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description's main contribution is specifying the scope (public community and library templates) and the result shape (id, title, source). This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation without contradicting it. No rate limits or auth details, but for a read-only search tool, that is acceptable.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. It covers purpose, return values, and a follow-up action with zero filler.

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 the six optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear summary of the return value (id, title, source), which is helpful. It could improve by hinting at pagination or filter options, but the schema covers those details. The mention of fork_template adds context for how the result should be used. Slightly incomplete but sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all six parameters. The description adds a small amount of semantic value by indicating that results are categorized by 'community/library', which aligns with the 'source' parameter, and by mentioning the returned fields. It does not elaborate on filters or pagination, but that is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Search') and the resource ('public community diagrams and curated library templates'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by stating its purpose: finding reusable starting points. It also mentions the key returned fields (id, title, source) and connects to fork_template, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'to reuse as a starting point' gives clear context for when to use this tool. The mention of 'Fork one with fork_template' explicitly directs the user to a follow-up tool, implying this is the search step before forking. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for community vs library sources, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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