hub__search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state what the search matches against (is it fuzzy? exact?), what happens with no results, whether it's read-only, or what response format to expect. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded keyword 'Search' immediately signals the tool's function.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, more is needed. The description doesn't clarify what 'tools' means in this hub context, what search semantics apply (substring, fuzzy, exact), or how results are returned. Complexity is low (2 params) but search behavioral expectations are ambiguous enough that the description should elaborate.

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, category) are already described in the schema. The description title mirrors the schema param names ('name/category') without adding depth. Category is marked optional in schema, and description says 'Filter by category (optional)', which is adequate but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Search tools by name/category' uses a clear verb (search) and specific resource (tools) plus scope (name/category). It distinguishes from siblings like list_servers or route_task, though it doesn't elaborate on what kind of 'tools' are searched (plugins, MCP tools, etc.).

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. There's no mention of when to use the category filter, when results are expected, or how it relates to hub__list_servers as a potential alternative for discovering available resources. The description implies a discovery/search use case but provides no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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