Search niceapps.club

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The 'candidates, not conversion evidence' caveat is a genuinely useful behavioral trait, but the description lacks other context such as result limits, matching behavior, or output shape.

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 extremely concise, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key caveat in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant padding.

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 three-parameter search tool, the description provides purpose and a crucial result interpretation, while the schema covers parameters. However, with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, an agent is left without explicit return structure or guidance on choosing between related search tools.

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 67%, with query and category already described in the schema. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but it does reinforce the overall intent behind the query terms. The 'limit' parameter remains generic, though its schema constraints are sufficient.

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 action ('Find') and resource ('screenshot references in the niceapps.club catalog'), so an agent understands the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_screenshots, leaving some differentiation to the tool name and context.

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 phrase 'Results are candidates, not conversion evidence' implies this tool is for discovery/reference gathering rather than validation, which is useful usage context. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of search_screenshots or get_app, so the guidance remains somewhat implicit.

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