search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds context that objects are 'visible live' and search can be exact or partial, but does not explain case sensitivity, ordering, or the meaning of 'live namespace objects'.

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?

Single sentence, concise, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. The description covers core search intent but leaves ambiguity around 'namespace objects' and lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools. Adequate for a simple search tool but with gaps.

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. It adds meaning to query (name) and exact (exact/partial), but does not mention the limit parameter or default behavior beyond the schema. Partial coverage only.

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 uses a specific verb 'search' with a clear resource 'visible live namespace objects' and matching modes 'exact or partial name'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list (browse all) and execute/call_function (run objects).

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 implies usage for finding objects by name but does not explicitly state when to use search vs list or other alternatives. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided.

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