search-components

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 does clarify that search matches against name, description, or category, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool returns a list, how partial matching works, whether results are paginated, or what happens on an empty result set.

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 a single sentence that states the action, resource, and search dimensions with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is mostly sufficient: the agent knows what to pass and what kind of operation to expect. The main gaps are a lack of explicit result-shape information and no guidance about when to use list-components instead, but the low complexity keeps these gaps minor.

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 schema only describes the 'query' parameter as 'Search query', which is extremely vague. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating that the query applies to component name, description, or category. This goes beyond the schema's coverage and gives the agent a clear idea of what values are appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Design System components') and names the exact search dimensions: name, description, or category. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like list-components and get-component, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening its schema.

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 verb 'search' implies this should be used when an agent needs to find components by free-text query rather than listing all components or fetching a specific one. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over list-components or get-component, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage guidance is implied, not stated.

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