sswp_node_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about full-text search behavior (partial keyword matching, FTS5 relevance ranking) and output format, which exceeds annotation coverage without contradiction.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 the annotations and schema, the description covers search behavior, output format, usage context, and alternative tool. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes what is returned (formatted table with name, node type, status, repo path).

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the query parameter supports partial keyword matching across multiple fields and provides examples. It also clarifies that limit defaults to 10, which is already in schema but reinforced.

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 searches the SSWP fleet registry using FTS5 across node names, tags, and descriptions, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'sswp_registry_health' by specifying the output as a formatted table of matching nodes.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to find specific projects... by name fragment, technology tag, or description keyword') and when to use an alternative ('for a full sorted health board of all nodes, use sswp_registry_health instead').

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