coss_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only search operation and returns ranked matches with install commands, but lacks explicit statements about side effects, authentication requirements, or result structure, which would be valuable for an agent.

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, with three short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage. No redundant information, and key points are front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers basic purpose and usage, it lacks details on result ranking, how install commands are presented, and the exact output format. Given no output schema, more context on what the agent can expect from results would improve completeness.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema cover 100% of the details (query, limit, section). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond schema, only clarifying the context of 'ranked matches with install commands.' Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 coss UI components/hooks by various criteria and returns ranked matches with install commands. It distinguishes itself from siblings like coss_get_component (which likely retrieves a single component) by indicating its role as the initial search step.

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 advises 'Use first to find the right component,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or specify alternatives for known components, leaving some gap in guidance.

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