search_design_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool scans all directories under a specific path, performs case-insensitive literal substring matching, and returns results newest first. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but for a search tool this is standard. The behavior is well-specified.

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 relatively concise, with the purpose front-loaded and details in a structured list. The 'Args' section uses a bullet-like format that aids readability. Minor improvement could remove redundant phrasing or further condense, but it is efficient overall.

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 gives a concise return description ('list of matching version records, newest first'). It covers scanning, matching fields, case-insensitivity, and search behavior. Some might desire more detail about the record format, but for a search tool this is adequate. The complexity is low.

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%, so description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that query is a literal substring (not regex) and limit is the maximum results with default 10. This adds value beyond the schema's type/default declarations.

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 action ('search'), the resource ('design versions'), and the fields searched (prompt, notes, or design name). It also details the scanning location and case-insensitive substring matching, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_design_versions (which lists all) and search_design_templates (which searches templates).

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need to find design versions by text in prompt, notes, or name. However, no explicit guidance is given on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like list_design_versions or search_design_templates. The description relies on context from sibling names.

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