search_component_definitions

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that output is automatically stored and returns an object ID for reference, but lacks details on permissions, error cases, or side effects. The semantic similarity behavior is mentioned.

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 redundancy (two sentences about using the object ID). It could be tightened without losing information.

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 adequately explains the return format (model, error, object ID) and how to use the result with other tools. It covers parameters and core behavior, missing only minor edge cases.

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, but the description compensates by clearly explaining both parameters: query and top_k with default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 components based on name or description using semantic similarity. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_docs and search_pipeline that target different resources.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_pipeline or get_component_definition. The description only describes what it does without context for selection.

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