mister_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results are fuzzy-matched and ranked, returns multiple fields, and supports system filtering. Lacks mention of default limit (but schema covers it) or error handling, but overall transparent and consistent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and return fields, followed by filtering and matching details. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return fields, filtering, and matching behavior. No additional context needed for a search tool of this complexity; it is complete and actionable.

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 already describes all three parameters with examples (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining fuzzy matching and ranking behavior for query, and stating 'Use 'system' to filter by platform', reinforcing parameter usage beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it searches the MiSTer-FPGA ROM library by name, returning specific fields (name, path, system, storage location), and mentions fuzzy-matching and ranking. This is distinct from all sibling tools, which are configuration or system info tools.

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?

Provides clear guidance: use 'system' to filter by platform, and describes results as fuzzy-matched and ranked by relevance. Does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but no alternative search tool exists among siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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