Get verified script examples

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'Semantically' and 'verified' do convey meaningful behavior about how matching and the corpus are scoped. However, it does not disclose what the response looks like or any side effects, though as a read-oriented search tool the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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?

One front-loaded sentence contains no filler and covers the tool's purpose and mode. Every word adds information, and there is no duplicated schema content.

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 low-complexity search tool, the description plus schema is minimally adequate: required and optional parameters are present, and the semantic-search behavior is stated. But without annotations or an output schema, an agent is left to infer the return structure and the effect of topK from naming conventions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies that 'query' is a semantic search phrase but never explains 'topK' or how the two parameters interact. 'topK' can be inferred from its name and schema bounds, but the description itself does not add this semantic value.

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 ('verified Elephant transform scripts') and adds the mode 'semantically,' which crisply distinguishes this from the Atlas-metadata sibling tools. A single sentence tells an agent exactly what the tool operates on and how.

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 establishes clear context: semantic search over verified Elephant transform scripts, so an agent can infer when to call it. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with script search, so the absence is not a practical gap.

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