search_sketches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'loaded sketches' usefully implies scope is limited to currently loaded sketches, but the description says nothing about matching semantics across filters, result limits/pagination, ordering, or what an empty result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the filter axes come first. Nothing is redundant with the title and nothing could be trimmed without losing a filter dimension.

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 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say at minimum what comes back (sketch summaries? IDs?) and how multiple filters interact. It covers the input surface adequately via the schema but leaves the return contract and filter-combination behavior entirely unaddressed.

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 every parameter including the renderer enum and the min/max parameter bounds is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories ('title, renderer, parameters, canvas size, skills') without adding syntax or combination rules, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (loaded sketches) plus the exact filter dimensions supported, so an agent immediately knows what it does. It does not name or distinguish itself from the obvious sibling list_sketches, so an agent must still infer which one to pick when no filter is needed.

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 is only implied by the verb and the enumerated filter dimensions; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_sketches or _get_sketch_data. Nothing says whether filters combine with AND/OR, whether an empty query returns everything, or whether all-optional params mean a bare call is valid.

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