search_browser

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the index builds in the background and reports 'truncated' until complete, it auto-follows newly installed packs, and refresh forces a rescan. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior for the ranked results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add distinct information (matching rule, result fields, category values, index lifecycle, loading follow-up). No filler or restated title.

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 no output schema, the description proactively lists returned fields (name, path, uri, category, kind, is_loadable, is_device) and the 'truncated' signal, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor omission is any note on ordering/ranking or result-count behavior.

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 carries the load and does so well: it defines query matching semantics ('every word must appear in the name (or the path)'), enumerates all valid category values, and explains refresh. Only `limit` is left undescribed, which is a minor gap given its obvious meaning and default.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search Live's browser by name') and enumerates the searchable entity types, which is enough to separate it from siblings like `browse`, `load_from_browser`, and `get_devices`. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear search-then-act pattern by naming load_from_browser(track, uri=...) as the follow-up, and explains the refresh=True case for forcing a rescan. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling `browse`, which is the most likely source of mis-selection.

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