search_component_definitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that results are automatically stored, returns an object ID, and can be used with object store tools. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. It provides moderate behavioral insight but leaves gaps.

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 moderately concise but contains some redundancy, e.g., mentioning the output is stored and then explaining how to use the ID. It is structured with a clear first sentence and parameter docs, but could be tightened by removing repeated advice about using the object ID.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, output format (preview + object ID), and integration with object store. However, it lacks details on error conditions, search semantics, and what fields appear in the preview. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally complete but leaves room for improvement.

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 0% description coverage (only titles). The description compensates by explicitly documenting both parameters: 'query' as the search query and 'top_k' as maximum results (default 5). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles. While it could include examples or constraints, it provides adequate semantic clarity for an agent.

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 it searches for components based on name or description using semantic similarity. This verb-resource pair is distinct from sibling tools like 'search_pipeline' or 'search_docs', which target other entities. The inclusion of 'using semantic similarity' adds specificity.

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 such as 'get_component_definition' or other search tools. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. This lack of usage context is a significant gap given the large number of sibling tools.

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