taro-official-query-assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (sitemap URL matching) and return type (asset_ids), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe limitations like only matching URLs, not full text. More transparency about behavior would be helpful, but the core is present.

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 action and resource. It includes the key output relationship without any fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 is relatively simple with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, method, and output, but does not specify the exact return format beyond 'asset_ids' or behavior when no results are found. Overall, it is fairly complete for a query tool, but a bit more detail on return structure would push it higher.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly described (query, top_k, pathPrefix, caseSensitive). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 queries Taro official docs via sitemap URL matching and explicitly indicates the output is asset_ids for the sibling tool taro-official-get-assets. This distinguishes it from the sibling by showing a pipeline relationship: query for IDs first, then fetch content.

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 context by naming the sibling tool and explaining that results are asset_ids intended for taro-official-get-assets. This implies the tool should be used before fetching content, though it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or alternatives. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand its role.

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