bsky_search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action ('search users by keyword') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (implied by the 'cursor' parameter but not explained), or what the search returns. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 ('ユーザーをキーワードで検索します') that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a bit more context without sacrificing brevity, but it's already well-structured for its length.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. While the output schema may cover return values, the description doesn't provide enough context for the agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively, especially compared to other search tools in the set.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (term, limit, cursor, acting_handle) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters—it only mentions 'keyword' generically, which loosely relates to the 'term' parameter. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'ユーザーをキーワードで検索します' (Search users by keyword) clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('users'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like bsky_search_posts or bsky_search_local_posts, which also perform keyword searches but on different resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling search tools (e.g., bsky_search_posts for searching posts instead of users), nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts for usage. Without such information, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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