vw_vs_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by emphasizing 'live' and 'of the running Vectorworks', telling the agent it queries dynamic in-process state and requires an active instance. It does not mention indexing/refresh behavior, result volume, or what happens for a query with no matches.

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?

Three short sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and examples used efficiently as illustration. Slightly more compactness is possible (the parenthetical and example list could be tightened), but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and the description already summarizes the return shape (function names with signatures/descriptions), and annotations cover safety, so the main gaps are the undocumented `limit` semantics and the absence of guidance on when to reach for this tool versus vw_exec_python. For a read-only lookup tool that is close to 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. The example queries ('record field', 'symbol insert', 'LDevice') usefully convey that `query` is a natural-language/keyword search over names and docs, but the `limit` parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (the live vs.* API / built-in docs of the running Vectorworks) and gives three concrete example queries. This clearly separates it from the domain-action siblings like vw_insert_symbol or vw_get_record, which operate on objects rather than the scripting API surface.

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 examples imply how the tool is used (finding function names before scripting), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of its relationship to vw_exec_python, the sibling an agent would most plausibly pair it with. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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