Search Reused Block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the search intent, but does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, result format, or any side effects. The reference to external docs does not disclose specific tool behavior, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence pointing to SKILL.md is informative but somewhat outside the tool's direct functionality. It holds attention well without unnecessary verbosity, though the external doc reference could be considered non-essential.

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?

While the tool is simple and schema covers parameters well, the description omits usage context (e.g., when to use vs. component_search) and behavioral expectations (e.g., results format, pagination implications). With no output schema, a bit more detail on return value or typical use cases would improve completeness.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters, including a query example. The description's phrase 'by function' adds marginal context to the query parameter but does not meaningfully extend beyond the schema's example. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 function: 'Search reusable circuit blocks by function.' This provides a specific verb (search), resource type (reusable circuit blocks), and search criterion (by function). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like component_search by specifying 'reusable circuit blocks' rather than generic components.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only points to external workflow documentation ('For circuit workflow docs, read: /app/docs/SKILL.md'), which is not a substitute for explicit usage context or exclusions. With sibling tools like component_search present, the lack of comparative guidance is a clear gap.

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