kali_search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a lookup operation over installed tools and enumerates valid categories, but it does not specify matching behavior, case sensitivity, result format, or whether query and category can be combined.

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 compact and front-loaded, and the category list earns its place as an enumerated set of valid inputs. The one-category-per-line formatting makes it slightly longer than necessary, but there is no filler.

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?

For a simple search tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers core semantics and accepted category values. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable; a brief usage example or combination rule would have made it fully complete.

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 provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives practical meaning to the query parameter as a name/keyword search and provides an explicit list of accepted category values, which is enough for correct invocation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Searches' with a clear resource 'installed Kali Linux tools' and identifies three search dimensions: name, keyword, or category. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that execute commands or run specific tools.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to locate an installed Kali tool by name, keyword, or category. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over execution-focused sibling tools or give any exclusion conditions.

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