search_debug_skills

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that it searches multiple fields and returns ranked results, which is helpful. However, it omits potential behaviors like case sensitivity, result limits, or performance characteristics.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (handling returns), the description sufficiently covers inputs, search scope, and output nature. It could mention any maximum result count or empty result behavior, but overall it is adequate.

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 has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), so the tool description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'keywords' as space-separated search terms and giving an example, which is effective.

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 it searches debug skills by keywords, specifying it searches through skill names, keywords, categories, and content body. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_debug_skills' (listing all) and 'get_debug_skill' (retrieving a specific one).

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 explains when to use the tool (searching by keywords matching symptoms or categories) and provides an example ('HardFault stack crash'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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