mesh_search_tools

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 scope and return shape ('across all aggregated MCP servers', 'ultra-compact signatures and relevance scores'). It omits any statement about cost, latency, result ranking behavior, or what happens with an empty/miss result, which an agent would want for a cross-server fan-out search.

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 compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, examples parenthetically embedded without bloat. No filler, though the parenthetical examples are the only slight padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly mentions the return format (signatures + relevance scores), and all three parameters are schema-documented. For a discovery tool with no annotations it is largely sufficient, missing only ranking/pagination behavior and explicit sibling routing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit and server. The keyword examples in the description add modest interpretive value for how to phrase 'query', but nothing beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('tools across all aggregated MCP servers') plus concrete keyword examples ('git commit', 'read file'). It clearly contrasts implicitly with mesh_invoke_tool/mesh_describe_tool by framing itself as discovery, but never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 says how to search (natural language keywords) but not when to reach for this tool versus mesh_describe_tool, mesh_invoke_tool or mesh_status, and no workflow (search -> describe -> invoke) is suggested. Usage is only faintly implied by the tool's name.

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