Echo Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of what is searched (local FS plus registry) and the registration-probe behavior, but says nothing about result ordering, limits interaction, or cost of a 'both' 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the mode enumeration and the special-case recipe. The only waste is the redundant self-referential tool identifier in parentheses.

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?

With 9 parameters, only 33% schema coverage, and two distinct search domains, the description covers the primary usage path adequately and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It still leaves the file-search parameters (root, pattern, include_content) and the interaction between targets and max_results unexplained for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain target, health, query, and check_ids semantics beyond the raw enum values. However root, pattern, include_content, max_results, and cap_ids receive no treatment in the description, leaving roughly half the surface undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (Search) and two concrete resources: local files/directories and the Echo SDK capability registry, with the target modes enumerated. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read, write, and invoke_sdk_cap, though the parenthetical repeating the tool's own name (mcp__claude_ai_EchoOmegaPrime__search) is confusing noise rather than clarification.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use target=sdk_caps with query='red unregistered' for red/unregistered grounding, and check_ids for exact registration probes. That is real when-to-use guidance for one scenario, but it never states when to prefer files vs both, nor when to reach for read or invoke_sdk_cap instead.

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