yang_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a prerequisite (YANG models in yang/sros-25.10/YANG/ or a pre-built cache in yang/cache/), but says nothing about result shape, whether results are paged/truncated, or failure behavior when a keyword matches nothing.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by examples that each earn their place by demonstrating a distinct keyword/tree combination. Slightly long, but nearly all content is informative.

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?

For a keyword-search tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient: purpose, routing to downstream tools, examples, and environment prerequisites are all present. Only return-format and edge-case behavior are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the examples add real meaning beyond the schema by showing the kind of domain-specific keyword tokens that are valid ('fpe', 'end-dt2', 'pxc') and how the tree argument pairs with them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Nokia SR OS YANG paths by keyword') and immediately positions itself relative to the sibling tools. An agent can distinguish it from sros_get_config/sros_get_state without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('find the correct gNMI path before using sros_get_config/sros_get_state/sros_set_update') and reinforces this with five concrete invocation examples covering different domains and both trees.

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