search_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions using 'semantic search with keyword and tag fallback,' giving insight into how the search works. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, authentication requirements, or whether the search is readonly. For a search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Every word adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by how it works and when to use it. Efficient and clear.

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 an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description need not explain return values. The tool has 3 parameters with only 1 required, and the description covers usage context and search method. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it, though the missing parameter descriptions slightly lower completeness.

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% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The description explains that the query parameter can be used to search by 'intent, task description, name, tags, or capability,' but does not mention the 'limit' or 'include_deprecated' parameters. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description should cover all parameters, but it only partially addresses one.

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: searching for approved reusable ToolForge tools by multiple criteria (intent, task description, name, tags, or capability). It uses specific verbs ('Search') and a clear resource ('approved reusable ToolForge tools'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_tools' (likely just listing) and 'get_tool' (retrieving a specific tool).

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this before generating new code when an existing approved tool may already solve the task.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before new code generation). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, though the context from sibling tools implies alternatives exist for different needs.

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