quickshell_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers. It discloses that matching is case-insensitive substring, that namespace/type results are separated to avoid flooding, that include_type_pages triggers a slow first-call caching behavior, and that refresh bypasses the cache. It also states defaults (latest version) and return-value usability. This exceeds what is expected from a description alone.

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 long but well-structured: core purpose, imperative instruction, usage examples, parameter clarifications, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the most critical takeaway ('ALWAYS call this...'). A few redundancies (default version noted inline and in schema) and the extensive example list add length, but nearly every sentence earns its place. Slightly overlong relative to strict conciseness, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what results look like ('matches with enough info to call quickshell_get_type or quickshell_get_guide_page directly'), covers caching/refresh, and distinguishes itself among a large sibling set. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 explain every parameter. It does: query (substring match), include_content (full-text search of guide bodies), include_type_pages (deep-search type reference pages), refresh (bypass cache), and version (defaults to latest). Each parameter is tied to a concrete use case, adding meaning far beyond the bare boolean/string types in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Quickshell type names, namespaces, and guide page slugs for a substring match (case-insensitive).' This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like quickshell_list_types and quickshell_get_type, which retrieve known items rather than searching. The explicit instruction to 'never guess property/type names, verify them here first' further anchors the tool's role.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'ALWAYS call this before writing any QML that references a Quickshell type or property from memory' and includes concrete examples mapping user intents to search terms. It also explains when to set include_content=True for prose questions and include_type_pages=True for deep type-page searches, effectively covering both when and when-not-to-use scenarios. This is a textbook example of usage guidance.

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