search_prefab_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that space-separated terms are OR-matched, that full details appear automatically for small match sets, that broad searches return a compact listing, and that detail/limit can override this. This gives an agent an accurate mental model of the tool's dynamic behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then matching behavior, then an Args list. The example query 'Card Badge Metric' clarifies OR-matching without extra prose. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 is highly complete for a search tool: it explains matching semantics, automatic vs. detail mode, override behavior, and limits. The output schema exists, so explaining return shape is unnecessary. The only completeness gap is the undocumented 'components' parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three of the four parameters are well covered in the schema, and the description reinforces them with concrete semantics such as OR-matching, the '≤5 matches' automatic threshold, and the default limit of 8. However, the 'components' parameter has no schema description and is completely absent from the description's Args list, leaving a notable gap at 75% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Prefab component library.' It then sharpens the purpose by stating the tool is for looking up exact argument names, accepted values, and usage examples before writing component code, and it distinguishes the tool from the skill-level layout/pattern guidance. This is clear enough to differentiate from siblings like generate_prefab_ui.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before writing component code, when exact API details are needed. It also contrasts with 'the skill' by saying the skill covers patterns and layout while this tool has API details. The query-matching and automatic detail-mode behavior further set expectations for how broad vs. narrow searches behave.

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