bw_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes wildcard support and filtering but does not disclose output format, pagination, limits, error conditions, or any performance implications. This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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, clear paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then provides details. It is concise without being overly terse, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating usage notes from examples).

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 should ideally describe the return format or typical results. It does not mention what the search returns (e.g., list of object names with types). Additionally, it omits error handling or edge cases. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context: for object_type it lists common TLOGO values with human-readable names, and for search_term it explains wildcard usage with a concrete example. This goes beyond the basic schema definitions.

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 is a universal search tool for BW objects by name or description, listing many specific object types. It explicitly distinguishes from type-specific sibling tools by advising to prefer this tool when the object name is unknown or a pattern is given.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (whenever the user wants to find, list, or look up any BW object), how to use wildcards, and when to pass object_type. It explicitly advises preferring this over type-specific tools when the name is unknown or a pattern is given.

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