search_capsules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a search operation (implied read-only), returns compact results with specific field mappings, supports pagination with next_token, and includes an option for field labels. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then details result format, pagination behavior, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though the field mapping explanation (id=id, n=name, etc.) could be slightly more concise.

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 the tool's complexity (search with multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the compact result format, pagination mechanism, and when to use alternatives. With an output schema handling return values, the description focuses appropriately on usage context and behavioral guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant value by explaining the 'include_field_names' parameter's effect and providing context about pagination behavior (next_token, has_more). While it doesn't detail all search parameters, it gives essential guidance on the tool's core functionality beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 purpose: 'Search for capsules with filtering, sorting, and pagination options.' It specifies the resource (capsules) and the core capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_capsule' which retrieves full details for a single capsule.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use get_capsule(id) if full details needed.' It also clarifies the tool's scope by describing the compact result format and when to use pagination (when has_more=true), giving clear context for its application.

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