search_structs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description fails to mention any behavioral traits such as case-insensitivity, substring matching, return format, or side effects. The schema descriptions are not part of the description.

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?

Extremely short but under-specified. While concise, it omits critical information that an agent needs to use the tool correctly, making it insufficient rather than efficient.

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 having an output schema (uncited), the description provides no context about return values, search behavior, or relationship to sibling tools. Minimal for a search-and-filter tool with 2 required parameters.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate for baseline score of 3.

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?

Description 'Search structs' is a tautology of the tool name search_structs. It states verb and resource but lacks specifics on what kind of search (e.g., by name, pattern) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like read_struct or search_text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest alternative tools like read_struct for direct struct access.

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