search_scripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clarifies the default search scope, which adds useful context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose potential performance implications of regex search. The behavior is largely inferred from the tool name and schema.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, efficiently communicating the core functionality and default behavior. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 or annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It covers the purpose and default, but lacks any indication of return values or search result behavior (e.g., pagination). The tool is simple enough that the description is adequate, but not fully complete.

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's note about default search by name duplicates the schema's search_in parameter description, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'scripts', and clearly specifies the search scope ('by name and/or code content') and default behavior ('Default searches by name only'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_scripts and get_script by focusing on the searching capability.

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 mentions the default search scope, which hints at usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_scripts or get_script. The context for choosing this tool is implied but not clearly articulated.

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