Search Outline Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool searches capabilities (a meta-search), but does not elaborate on behavioral details such as response format or pagination. This is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 that front-loads the purpose. However, it could be more efficient by including parameter hints without adding much length. It earns points for being short but loses some for missing detail that would improve 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?

The description lacks any explanation of what the tool returns (no output schema) and does not describe the search syntax or how to effectively use the query parameter. For a tool intended as a first-resort for tool selection, this incompleteness hampers an agent's ability to use it correctly.

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%—neither parameter (limit, query) is explained in the schema. The description does not mention or explain the parameters at all (e.g., what the query expects, how limit affects results). For a tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but fails to do so, resulting in a low score.

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 'Search the Outline/Playbook MCP capabilities' and adds 'Use first when deciding which tool to call,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like outline_search (which presumably searches documents). The verb 'search' and resource 'capabilities' are specific and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 says 'Use first when deciding which tool to call,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It implies a sequence (first step in tool selection) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or mention alternatives like outline_search, so there is some room for improvement.

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