search_components

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

With no annotations, the description appropriately discloses that the tool uses fuzzy matching and multi-token scoring, and returns ranked results with a _score. It implies read-only behavior, though not explicitly stated. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first covers action and scope, second covers matching method and follow-up instruction. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 explains the return format (compact summaries with name, layer, path, _score) which is important since no output schema. It could mention the default limit (20) but otherwise complete for a search 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context on matching algorithm and return format, but not significantly beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The layer and limit parameters are already well-described in 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 clearly states it searches across the full codebase by name, path, description, or keywords, listing specific entity types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_component_detail and get_component_props by noting it returns compact summaries and advising follow-up for full data.

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 good context on when to use this tool (initial search) and explicitly mentions follow-up with get_component_detail/props for full details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or other alternatives beyond those two.

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