search_user_directives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate these. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result limits), but given annotations, it meets the baseline.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key requirement. It is appropriately concise with no redundant content.

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 no output schema, the description lacks information about return format or result size. It also does not differentiate from sibling search tools beyond the filter requirement. However, the input schema is fully covered, and annotations provide safety context, making it minimally sufficient.

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%, with all five parameters well-described (e.g., 'LIKE match, case-insensitive' for name). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 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 the tool searches user directives with optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_all_directives (no filters) and get_directive_by_name (exact match). However, it does not specify what 'user directives' are, leaving some ambiguity.

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 includes a usage requirement ('At least one filter required'), which helps guide invocation. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other search tools (e.g., search_directives) or when not to use it, limiting decision-making support.

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