Search installed Omarchy commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only search operation but does not mention any side effects (none expected), return format, pagination behavior, or how the catalog is structured. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious 'search' action, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function with no waste, and the second gives a practical reason to use it. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description explains the purpose and use case but does not specify what the returned data looks like (no output schema). Since this is a search tool with three optional parameters, an agent might benefit from knowing whether it returns matching command names, full details, or only routes/arguments. The mention of 'machine-readable' hints at structured output but leaves details ambiguous. Overall, adequate but with a notable gap in expected return shape.

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 coverage is 67%: group and query have descriptions, but limit does not. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so it does not compensate for the missing limit description. However, the schema already provides reasonable context for the two documented parameters and the limit's constraints (default, min, max) are self-explanatory. Description adds little value beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'machine-readable command catalog from the installed Omarchy version', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like theme_list or wifi_status. It also ties the purpose to a concrete use case (discovering routes/arguments before adding/troubleshooting wrappers), making its role unambiguous.

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 provides a clear use scenario ('before adding or troubleshooting a wrapper') that implies when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but given its unique search functionality among the many siblings, the guidance is effective for an agent to decide to use it.

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