Uploadkit

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 effectively describes key traits: 'fuzzy-search', 'case-insensitive', 'read-only', 'idempotent', and details the search scope (name, category, description, inspiration). It also specifies the return format, though it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits or error handling, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, returns, behavioral notes), uses bullet-like formatting for examples, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently conveys necessary 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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavioral traits, and return format in detail. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly describing the return JSON structure, making it fully adequate for agent use.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose ('free-text keyword') and providing context about what fields are searched (name, category, description, inspiration), along with illustrative examples. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical details.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('fuzzy-search') and resources ('UploadKit component catalog'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'list_components' by noting it's for discovery rather than enumeration. It provides concrete examples of search terms, making the purpose highly specific 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 includes an explicit 'When to use' section that specifies the context (user describes vibe/use case without knowing component names) and names the alternative tool ('list_components') with clear guidance on when to prefer this tool. This provides comprehensive usage guidance.

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