search_infrontofx_skill

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it searches only 'approved installed-skill references,' uses 'literal terms' rather than semantic matching, and returns file and line locations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: the search action, target corpus, matching mode, approval constraint, and return location format.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and return shape. However, it omits the limit parameter entirely and gives no usage alternatives, leaving minor but meaningful gaps.

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 carry the burden for both parameters. It clarifies that 'query' is a literal-term search, but the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantics and constraints unexplained beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find relevant house rules ... across approved installed-skill references.' This clearly separates it from retrieval-oriented siblings like get_infrontofx_skill and list_infrontofx_topics, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of get_infrontofx_skill, list_infrontofx_topics, or other siblings. The 'literal terms' phrasing implies a search use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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