search_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor any related side effects, rate limits, or output details. The only behavioral insight is support for concept search, which is more of a feature than a transparency about side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and begins with the core purpose. Every word adds value, and the structure efficiently communicates the tool's utility.

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 schema covers all parameters and no output schema is present, the description adequately explains the search functionality and concept matching. It lacks details on how matches are ranked or how framework limiting works, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds significant value for the 'query' parameter by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'state management' matching useState, createStore), enhancing understanding beyond the schema. For 'frameworks' and 'limit', the schema already provides adequate descriptions, so the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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's purpose: searching for APIs by concept when exact name is unknown. It provides examples like 'state management' matching multiple APIs, which effectively communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings that likely handle exact lookups or dependency scanning.

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 explicitly advises use when 'you don't know the exact name' and supports concept search, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_api_context for exact lookups, slightly reducing clarity.

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