search_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely meets it: it reveals the camelCase-splitting matching mode, optional category filtering, and the default cap of 15 results. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or case sensitivity, but for a read-only search tool the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 consists of one front-loaded purpose line followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema structure, boilerplate, or redundant phrasing.

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 3-parameter search tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: it covers purpose, matching behavior, all parameters, defaults, and return content. The only notable omissions are explicit sibling routing and edge-case behavior, which are minor at this complexity level.

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% — the input schema contains only titles and types. The Args section fully compensates by defining keywords as a list with camelCase matching, category as an optional filter, and limit as a max-return-count defaulting to 15, adding operational meaning the schema itself lacks.

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 '根据关键词搜索 ZStack API' names a specific verb (search) and resource (ZStack API), and the Returns section clarifies that it yields API metadata (name, description, category, call type) rather than executing calls. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like execute_api and search_metric, whose targets are different.

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 a concrete matching-behavior example ('vm' matches 'QueryVmInstance' via camelCase splitting), which helps an agent phrase queries effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over describe_api/execute_api or when to use search_metric instead; routing is left implied by sibling names rather than stated.

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