search_clawskills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: playbooks are ranked ahead of generic skill matches for workflow-shaped queries. However, it omits other behavioral details such as result format, pagination, or any permission requirements, leaving room for improvement.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a useful ranking nuance. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a behavioral nuance. It could be more explicit about when to prefer sibling tools, but the overall context is sufficient for correct usage.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including example values. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already offers, so a 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 states the tool's function: 'Search across both skills and playbooks.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_skills and search_playbooks, which focus on one resource type.

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 provides clear usage context by indicating that this tool is for searching across both resources, and adds a ranking behavior for workflow-shaped queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use separate search tools, so it falls short of a complete 5.

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