emule_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses return fields but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether an established connection is required, how failures are reported, or whether searches are potentially expensive or asynchronous.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every part carries meaning: the operation, the network scope, and the output contents.

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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description omits parameter details, prerequisites, and behavioral context. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema and still lack guidance on connection requirements and method semantics, making the definition incomplete.

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 the undocumented parameters. It gives a partial hint via 'eD2k or Kad' and 'files', but it does not clarify how method, limit, or file_type affect the search, nor how they map to the network choices.

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'), a clear resource ('files on eD2k or Kad'), and the expected result fields ('name, size, sources and ed2k link'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools that manage servers, connections, or downloads.

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 use case is implied: use this when a file search on eD2k/Kad is needed, unlike emule_connect or emule_list_servers. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as requiring an active eMule connection.

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