search_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches by name pattern but doesn't describe what 'search' entails (e.g., returns partial matches, supports wildcards as hinted in the schema, or handles case sensitivity). It lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or performance considerations, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search for modules'), making it easy to parse. There's no redundancy or fluff, earning its place as a concise and well-structured summary.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., module names, details, or IDs), how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., max pattern length). With 2 parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('pattern' and 'limit'), including default values and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the search is based on name patterns, but it doesn't elaborate on pattern syntax or usage examples. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 action ('Search for modules') and the target resource ('modules'), with the specific criterion 'by name pattern'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_modules' by specifying a search operation rather than a simple listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like 'search_classes' or 'search_functions' beyond the resource type.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'search_modules' over 'list_modules' (e.g., for filtered results vs. all modules), nor does it reference other search tools like 'search_classes' or 'search_functions' for different resource types. There's no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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