searchObject

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. 'Search for objects' gives no insight into whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. It lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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?

While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load critical details, leaving the agent with minimal actionable information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this ineffective.

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 complexity implied by a search tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'objects' refer to, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer usage correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'query', 'objType', and 'max'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as examples or usage tips. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 'Search for objects' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'searchObject' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what types of objects are being searched, in what context, or how this differs from other search-related tools like 'searchPackage' or 'findDefinition' among the siblings.

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. With many sibling tools that involve searching or finding (e.g., 'searchPackage', 'findDefinition', 'findObjectPath'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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