search_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or potential performance costs. The agent is left to infer safety from the tool name and 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a short note. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful note on a related action. Every sentence adds value without 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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It explains the search purpose and mentions a hint about reordering, but it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. The note, while helpful, is slightly tangential to the main function.

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?

All four parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds a brief clarification that the search query matches against 'name, type, or content,' which reinforces the schema but does not meaningfully extend beyond it. Baseline score of 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 purpose: 'Search for elements in the project. Useful for finding elements by name, type, or content.' It identifies the specific verb (search) and resource (elements), and distinguishes it from sibling search tools for other resource types (e.g., search_files, search_methods).

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 a clear usage guideline by mentioning an alternative action: 'To reorder elements, use update_element to modify the parent element's 'data' array.' This tells when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with other search tools or provide scenarios for when to use this tool over them, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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