Search Inspectors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the offline/snapshot nature (no server call), the fuzzy match semantics, what is returned (signatures, result types, dialects), and an important reliability caveat that absence in the snapshot does not prove absence on the live server. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: identification and scope first, matching behavior and use-case triggers second, the snapshot caveat last. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant facts are 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?

The tool exposes an output schema, so return-value detail is correctly omitted. Given a 4-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers identity, matching semantics, usage triggers and the snapshot limitation — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so kind, limit, query and dialect are already documented in structured data. The description's only marginal contribution is that results include 'the dialect each inspector exists in', which loosely relates to the dialect filter, but it adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the BigFix inspector reference') and immediately scopes it as an 'offline snapshot; no server call', which cleanly separates it from live-query siblings like analyze_relevance or client_query. It also characterizes the matching behavior (exact, prefix, near-miss) so the agent knows what kind of lookup this is before opening the schema.

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?

Gives two concrete trigger conditions: 'before writing a query' and 'after an is not defined error'. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming competitor tools (e.g. list_operators, get_operator) or stating when not to use it, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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