map_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the scope of search (name/ip/notes, stickies, labels, ports) and the return shape (categorized hits with total count). While it doesn't state read-only explicitly, the search nature is clear, and it adds useful context beyond the schema. Minor gap: no mention of result limits or error behavior, but acceptable for a read-only search.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by output and alternative. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. Ideal conciseness.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set and no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does say 'Returns categorized hits with a total count,' and the categories are listed. It also gives an alternative. This is sufficient for a search tool, though a bit more detail on the hit structure would make it complete. Overall, quite adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema: it mentions the search categories but does not directly explain the 'types' parameter's behavior beyond what the schema already says. The q parameter is well-described in the schema, so the description's contribution is marginal.

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 performs full-text search across nodes, stickies, connection labels, and ports, with specific fields enumerated. It also distinguishes itself from sibling map_find_node, which is for structured node-only filtering, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicitly says to use map_find_node for structured node-only filtering, providing a clear alternative and when-not-to-use guidance. It implies this tool is for broader full-text searches, giving practical context for selection.

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