nifi_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is backed by GET /flow/search-results and matches UI behavior, which is useful parity context, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or how pg_id scopes the search.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the endpoint/UI-parity detail placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only annotations carry the safety story. The only real omission is the scope/behavior of the pg_id parameter, which an agent needs to target the right process group.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that the required `query` matches four different component fields, but says nothing about `pg_id`, whose 'root' default and process-group scoping behavior are non-obvious for a multi-group flow.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (flow components) and enumerates the searchable fields (name, id, property value, comment). This distinguishes it from the retrieval siblings like nifi_list_processors or nifi_get_processor, though it does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., nifi_find_component_types) to sharpen the boundary.

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 field list and 'same search the NiFi UI uses' phrasing imply when this is the right tool (locating components when you don't have an exact id/handle), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of filtering semantics, and no alternative named. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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