search_definitions

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

The description discloses the search mode (substring) and scope (defined object names in the indexed tree), which adds some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it omits important traits such as read-only safety, case sensitivity, result handling, and the effect of category or limit.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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 search tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description is too terse. It leaves parameter behavior, filtering, and search specifics unclear, although the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters. The 'query' parameter is self-evident by name, but 'limit' and 'category' semantics are entirely undocumented, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a substring search over every defined object name in the indexed tree. It is specific in scope but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_definition or search_script_docs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is only implied by the description, and no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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