scm_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: case-insensitive substring search by default, returns dict keyed by resource type, folder parameter ignored for certain resource types, and default values for multiple parameters. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but provides substantial operational context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter explanations. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a complex search tool with 6 parameters. Some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the resource_types list is lengthy but necessary), but overall it's front-loaded with essential information and avoids redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, parameter semantics, default behaviors, and return format. It lacks information about error handling, pagination, performance characteristics, and exact output structure details, but covers the essential operational aspects well for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all parameters: query (substring match behavior), folder (default and exceptions), resource_types (complete valid values list), exact_match (case-sensitivity implications), include_rulebases (default and options), and tsg_id (default value). Each parameter's purpose and behavior is clearly explained beyond basic schema information.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Search for objects and rules by name') and resources ('across all (or selected) SCM resource types'), distinguishing it from siblings that are mostly create/get/list/update/delete operations for specific resource types. It explicitly mentions searching across multiple resource types, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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 context through parameter explanations (e.g., 'Omit to search all types', 'Default False', 'Defaults to SCM_TSG_ID'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like specific list_* tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, performance considerations, or clear when-not-to-use scenarios.

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