anylogic_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose reasonable behavioral detail — best results from exact identifiers, scope/section narrowing, and a 1–25 result cap — but says nothing about how results are ranked, whether snippets are returned, or cost/latency characteristics.

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 purpose line is front-loaded and the Args block is compact, one line per parameter. Slight redundancy in restating parameter names, but nothing wasteful.

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?

As a read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to construct a call. The notable gap is disambiguation across five sibling tools (anylogic_api_search, anylogic_examples, anylogic_toc, anylogic_read), none of which is referenced.

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 compensate, and it largely does: it gives query examples ('Seize', 'take()', 'ResourcePool'), enumerates scope values with meaning, shows a section path prefix, and bounds limit to 1–25 (the schema only supplies a default of 8). Only the default value for limit is left unstated.

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 and resource: search the AnyLogic documentation (user guide and Java API). Clear what it does, but with siblings named anylogic_api_search and anylogic_examples the description never says how this differs from them, so an agent must guess which search surface to pick.

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 through the scope/section parameters ('guide' vs 'api', empty = everything). There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus anylogic_api_search or anylogic_toc, nor any exclusion guidance.

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