Plecs Library Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the text-parse-then-RPC-fallback path, the conditions that trigger fallback, and that the response reports backend and fallback_reason. It omits other behavioral traits the agent would want, such as caching/refresh semantics, read-only nature, or result volume, so it goes beyond the minimum but is not comprehensive.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second paragraph is tightly scoped to backend behavior with no filler. Slightly awkward to dedicate most of the prose to a single parameter while leaving the others unaddressed, but there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the fallback reporting is covered. Still, for a four-parameter search tool with zero schema coverage, the missing query/limit/refresh semantics leave an agent guessing on how to call it correctly.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only documents backend; it says nothing about query matching semantics, what limit actually caps, or what refresh invalidates — arguably the most important parameter for repeated calls.

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 states a specific verb and resource — searching the installed PLECS component library — and clarifies what is searched over (types, names, default parameters). It is clearly distinct from siblings like plecs_list_methods or plecs_get_model_tree, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It explains when to pick each backend mode (auto vs text vs rpc) and when auto falls back, which is useful selection guidance for one parameter. However, it gives no indication of when to use this tool rather than sibling introspection tools like plecs_get_model_tree or plecs_list_methods, leaving that inference to the agent.

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