search_tamagui_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a search but does not describe the return format, whether it is read-only, or any limitations. As a search tool, the behavior is relatively low-risk, but the description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource without any filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how results are presented, but it does not. It also fails to mention the additional search categories (animations, themes, config) that are available, leaving a significant gap for an agent deciding whether this tool fits the task.

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 complete (100%) with descriptions for both 'query' and 'category', and the category enum is also provided. The description only vaguely references 'components and styling', which partially maps to the category parameter but does not add meaningful details beyond the schema.

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 identifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Tamagui documentation', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_expo_docs by specifying the Tamagui ecosystem. However, the scope is understated as 'components and styling', while the schema allows additional categories such as animations, themes, and config, creating a slight mismatch.

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 usage context is only implied by the tool name and description; there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The sibling 'search_expo_docs' suggests a division by documentation source, but the description does not state this or any exclusions.

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