theory_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. It explicitly states the action is a search that 'returns hits', making it evident the operation is read-only and non-destructive. While it doesn't explicitly say 'does not modify', the language strongly implies a safe query, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 two sentences long, starting with the core action and then elaborating on scope and use cases. Every word contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It explains what is searched, what is returned (hits across listed theory domains), and how to use it via examples. No additional information is needed for correct usage.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter q as a case-insensitive search query, so baseline coverage is high. The description adds value by providing example queries and specifying the substring matching behavior, which clarifies the parameter's intent beyond the schema alone.

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 tool searches across all theory data by substring, enumerating the covered domains (scales, progressions, cadences, sections, forms, genres, heuristics). This distinguishes it from the many specific theory tools listed as siblings, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides concrete use cases with examples ('find anything related to lofi', 'what mentions Phrygian'), which effectively illustrate when to employ this general search. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the examples and 'across all theory data' framing implicitly position it as the fallback for fuzzy queries.

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