search_prompts

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 only says what is searched, not how results are matched, whether search is case-insensitive, how results are ordered, or that the operation is non-destructive. 'Search' weakly implies a read operation, but concrete behavioral traits are missing.

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 focused sentence with an active verb and no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, and the core searchable scope is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core objective but omits the optional category filter and limit behavior. It is minimally viable, and the self-explanatory schema partially compensates, but the absence of usage/behavioral context leaves moderate 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 for parameter meaning. It clarifies that query searches across content, title, tags, or description, but says nothing about the limit or category parameters, leaving their semantics to be inferred from their names.

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 ('Search') and resource ('prompts'), and enumerates the fields being searched: content, title, tags, or description. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose, even without sibling tools to differentiate against.

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 for finding prompts by text or metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are listed, so there is no direct comparison, but the usage context remains only implied rather than stated.

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