capacities_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields (IDs, structure types, titles) but does not mention permissions, no-match behavior, search semantics (e.g., partial vs exact match), or potential side effects. This is acceptable for a simple read-only search but leaves gaps.

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 a single concise sentence plus a return clause, front-loaded with the main action ('Search for objects by title'). It contains no redundant or filler wording.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the purpose and the return values, which is sufficient given the lack of an output schema. It could mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but for the complexity level it is fairly complete.

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 100%, meaning both parameters (spaceId, searchTerm) are already well documented. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond reinforcing that search is by title, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 for objects by title within a Capacities space and specifies the returned fields (IDs, structure types, titles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing spaces, creating objects, or getting current object.

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 implies usage when searching objects by title, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance.

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