sbox_search_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden for behavioral disclosure. The description does clarify this is a search operation (returns matching types) rather than a mutation. It doesn't describe pagination behavior, result count behavior, or error handling, but as a read-only search tool the behavioral surface is limited.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and expected output; second sentence gives the natural next-step tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what to search, what gets returned, and what to use next. Could add response-format details since there's no output schema, but the tool's simplicity mitigates this gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query and limit) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds context about what kinds of queries are valid (type name, namespace, method name, keyword), which supplements rather than duplicates the schema. The description adds marginal value but schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('s&box API reference'), and the scope (classes, structs, interfaces, and their members). It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly describing what's returned (matching types with descriptions and member names) and pointing to sbox_get_api_type for full details, distinguishing it from sbox_search_docs which searches documentation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching the API reference) versus sbox_get_api_type (getting full details for a specific type). However, it doesn't explicitly address sbox_search_docs differentiation or specify when NOT to use this tool, though the alternative guidance is reasonably clear.

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