sdk_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: search is by filename substring, not full-text or semantic search. However, it does not describe what the returned results look like, how limit affects results, case sensitivity, or ordering. It is adequate but minimal.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It states the action, target, matching mechanism, and an example with no wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description gives enough to start using the query parameter, but it does not explain result format, limit behavior, or how the returned search results feed into other tools like sdk_read. For a search tool with no annotations, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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. The phrase 'filename substring' adds meaningful semantics to the 'query' parameter, clarifying that it is not a natural-language query. The 'limit' parameter, however, is not explained at all beyond its default value in the schema. The description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('installed SDK topics'), and a precise matching criterion ('by interface/member/enum filename substring'). The example 'e.g. fillet' reinforces the intended use. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like sdk_read, which likely reads a specific topic rather than searching for one.

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 use when the agent needs to locate SDK topics by filename substring, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sdk_read or api_describe. There is no mention of when not to use it. The usage context is clear enough but not fully articulated.

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