search_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the transparency burden. It explicitly says 'Search' and 'Returns brief results', making it clear this is a read operation without side effects. However, it does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything' or mention any side-effect-related details, so a slight gap remains.

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, free of fluff, and front-loaded with the core search function. The follow-up instruction and preference guidance are packed efficiently without redundancy.

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?

Given the sibling tools list_categories, list_components, and get_component, the description fully explains how this search tool fits into the workflow: it returns brief results and advises following up with get_component for source. This is complete for an agent deciding whether and how to use the tool.

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 single parameter 'query' is described in the schema as 'What the user is trying to build.' and the description gives concrete examples of queries ('glass card', 'pull to refresh', 'onboarding'). This fully covers the parameter's purpose and expected input.

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?

Clearly states it searches the curated SwiftUI catalog by free text across multiple fields (title, description, tags, category). The verb 'search' and the scope are specific, and the distinction from siblings like list_categories and get_component is evident.

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?

Explicitly instructs to prefer this tool when the user describes a UI need, provides concrete examples, and directs follow-up with get_component for full source. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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