Search Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, establishing safe read and idempotent behavior. The description adds the crucial behavioral detail that the tool 'returns install commands', which is not covered by annotations or schema. This adds value beyond the structured fields.

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: the first clearly states the action and resources, and the second states the output. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 4 parameters (including an enum and a semantic option) and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not explain behavior differences across type filters, the semantic search requirement, or the return format beyond 'install commands'. The schema provides parameter details, but the description lacks high-level completeness for a search tool of this complexity.

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 all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it summarizes the purpose but not parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 for Claude Code skills, plugins, and MCP servers, and returns install commands. It specifies the verb 'search' and identifies the resource (skills, plugins, MCP servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'browse' and 'sources' which likely have different purposes.

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 implies usage for searching installable resources but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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