Search Systems

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

With readOnlyHint:true in annotations, the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavior: 'All filters are combined with AND logic,' which clarifies how multiple parameters interact. It also provides example values and filter semantics, going beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 two short sentences that lead with the core purpose ('Search Beaker systems...') and follow with a concise expansion of criteria and filter behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. Ideal front-loading for quick scanning.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, the types of filters, and the AND logic, which is sufficient for a search tool. However, it does not mention behavior when no filters are provided (e.g., returns first N systems based on limit), though this is partially addressed by the schema's default limit. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Sparse but adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists some parameter names (hostname, CPU, architecture, memory, pool, owner) but does not add new syntax or format details that are absent from the schema. It adds no extra semantic value beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide, so a 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Search Beaker systems by hardware attributes and ownership.' It lists specific criteria (hostname, CPU, architecture, memory, pool, owner) and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_systems (which likely lists all) and get_system_details (which fetches a single system). The intent is unmistakable and well-scoped.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to search systems by attributes, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_systems or get_system_details, nor does it state when not to use it. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions beyond the obvious, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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