cyberchef_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating the result shape (names and one-line summaries) and signaling that full schemas are intentionally deferred to another tool. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the return behavior is stated, and the recommended next step is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers purpose, return content, and follow-up. The main gap is the lack of explicit positioning against cyberchef_list_operations, which could leave an agent slightly uncertain about which search/list tool to choose.

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 schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, such as how 'query' matches against operations or when 'detailed' should be set. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden successfully.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('available CyberChef operations'), and clarifies that it returns names and one-line summaries. It distinguishes itself from cyberchef_describe_operation by pointing to that tool for schemas, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding cyberchef_list_operations, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context: use it to search for operations, and follow up with cyberchef_describe_operation for argument schemas. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over cyberchef_list_operations or cyberchef_categories, but the search-focused guidance is still useful and actionable.

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