principles.search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe and idempotent. The description adds some behavioral context (returns title, cluster, definition, etc.) but does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or other potential side effects. This is acceptable given the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: action, usage context, return fields, and sibling differentiation. 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the returned fields (title, cluster, definition, rationale, heuristics), which is sufficient for understanding what the tool provides. The context signals show only two simple parameters, and the description covers their use adequately.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing both parameters. The description adds meaning by stating that the 'query' parameter is matched against title, definition, rationale, and cluster, enriching the static schema. The 'limit' parameter is not elaborated in the description but has a default and min in the 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 the tool searches Blueprint principles by free-text query and returns closest matches ranked by relevance. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool principles.list by advising to use this when a specific topic is in mind.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus principles.list: 'Prefer this over principles.list when you have a specific topic in mind rather than wanting all principles.' Also gives example queries to illustrate suitable uses.

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