search_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool accepts search criteria, but fails to disclose important behavioral aspects such as what is returned (e.g., a list of component names), pagination behavior, or any limits. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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, well-structured sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., component names, IDs, or details). It lacks this critical information, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use the results. Additionally, it does not mention any default behavior when the optional category parameter is omitted.

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% description coverage, meaning the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds marginal value by paraphrasing the search criteria ('by functionality, category, or keywords'), but does not provide additional meaning or constraints beyond 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 specifies the tool's verb ('Search') and resource ('Fluent UI components'), and further defines search criteria ('functionality, category, or keywords'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_info which retrieves details of a known component.

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 implied usage is for locating components, as opposed to sibling tools that retrieve specific information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it.

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