search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches and returns a list of results, but it doesn't cover important traits like whether it's read-only, if it has rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, minor improvements in structure (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output specifics (e.g., result format). Without annotations or an output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for an AI agent.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'query' by explaining it's 'The search query to search Splunkbase for,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic title and type. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could be more detailed (e.g., query syntax).

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 Splunkbase for apps.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('Splunkbase for apps'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_app' or 'get_app_latest_version', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'download_app' or 'get_app_latest_version', nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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