search_concepts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only search operation, but does not explicitly state side effects (e.g. non-destructive). The description is accurate but minimal.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant information.

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's simplicity (2 required parameters, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, parameter semantics, and domain source. The output schema covers return format, so no further detail is needed.

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%, requiring the description to compensate fully. It explains 'query' with examples ('inference', 'sandbox') and 'domain' with a direct reference to list_domains() and examples, adding crucial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Find concepts in a NVIDIA AI domain by keyword', specifying the verb (Find), resource (concepts), and context (NVIDIA AI domain). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_domains' and 'query_ckg' by focusing on keyword-based search within a domain.

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: the 'domain' argument should come from list_domains(), illustrated with examples. However, it does not compare to sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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