mdan_ecosystem_search

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: matches are ranked by name/description match and the scope is limited to installed components under ~/.claude. It does not describe return format or result count, but the ranking and scope details add meaningful context.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then adds the scope and ranking behavior. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only keyword search with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core information: what is searched, where (~/.claude), and how results are ordered. It omits return shape and limit behavior, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 already documents kind and query (67% coverage). The description reinforces that kind maps to skills/agents/commands and query maps to keywords, but it adds no additional meaning for the limit parameter, which is undocumented in the schema and description. Limit does have default/min/max constraints, so its semantics are partially recoverable from the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('installed Claude Code skills, agents or commands'), and a ranking criterion ('by keywords, ranked by name/description match'). It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like mdan_ecosystem_catalog, mdan_list_agents, or mdan_list_workflows.

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 phrase 'by keywords' implies this is the tool to use when searching rather than listing or reading ecosystem components, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Sibling alternatives are not named, so the agent must infer routing from context.

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