Search appCN components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'ranked matches with their delight detail' but does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. However, the search nature suggests it is non-destructive, which is reasonable but not confirmed.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and examples, and includes a clear action statement. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description mentions 'ranked matches with their delight detail' but does not specify the structure or fields of the return value. While the simplicity reduces the need for extensive detail, the absence of output format specification leaves some ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'query' parameter. The description adds value by explaining the parameter accepts 'intent or keywords' and provides illustrative examples, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 finds appCN components by intent or keyword, with concrete examples like 'chat input' and 'voice indicator'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_component by directing users to use get_component for full source and docs.

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 explains when to use the tool (to find components by intent or keyword) and provides a clear follow-up action (use get_component on the best match). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for correct tool selection among siblings.

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