search_flyte_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions searching over three fields but does not disclose search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, fuzzy matching), pagination (limit parameter not explained), or what happens with empty results. The existence of an output schema may compensate for return values, but the description lacks behavioral details.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, though it could include slightly more detail without becoming 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 tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It should explain search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, scope), how to use the limit parameter, and any limitations. The output schema may cover returns, but the description lacks sufficient context for proper use.

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 explain parameters. It only implies 'query' and 'limit' via the search context but provides no details about query format, acceptable values, or how limit affects results. The schema itself has no descriptions, so the description adds minimal value.

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 verb (keyword search) and the resource (Flyte V2 symbol names, signatures, docstrings). It differentiates from sibling tools like find_flyte_example_for or get_flyte_symbol by specifying the scope over multiple fields.

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 use for searching Flyte V2 metadata but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on context or 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.