search_shapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output content and how to use the style strings directly, implying a read-only search operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects (though it is clearly a search), which would add clarity.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by removing the last conditional ('Also skip if...') but overall it is well-structured and informative without being verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully explains the return values (style strings, dimensions, titles) and their usage. For a search tool with two well-documented parameters, the description provides complete context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds concrete examples for the query parameter ('pid globe valve', etc.) and specifies default and max for limit, going beyond the schema to enhance understanding.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('draw.io shape library'), and describes the outputs ('exact style strings, dimensions, and titles'). It effectively distinguishes from the only sibling tool, create_diagram, by specifying its unique purpose for industry-specific icons.

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 explicitly states when to use ('diagrams that need industry-specific or branded icons') and when not to use ('standard diagram types...'). It provides clear exclusion criteria and references alternatives ('basic geometric shapes covered in the XML reference').

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