danceflow_search

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an empty query enumerates the full catalogue, results carry runtime requirements and follow-up calls, and — most importantly — discovery never executes a workflow. That last clause prevents a real misuse mode, though no rate limits or result-size behavior are mentioned.

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?

Roughly forty words across three sentences, front-loaded with the routing instruction "Start here" and the core verb. The clause listing result contents is dense but each item is informative, so little trimming is warranted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, and the description still previews the useful contents (schemas, runtime requirements, follow-up calls, coverage). For a five-parameter read-only discovery tool, an agent has enough to select and call it correctly, with the only gap being the kind/component filter semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it only partly does: it explains that query is free text derived from a task and that an empty query browses all, and it implies limit/offset through "pagination." The kind enum is only loosely reflected (tools, workflows, skills, features), leaving component and reference undocumented in both schema and description.

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-plus-resource: find tools, workflows, skills and features by words from a task, and flags itself as the entry point with "Start here." That distinguishes it from siblings like danceflow_capabilities or danceflow_list_workflows without naming them explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear usage context: search by task wording, and use an empty query to browse everything. What is missing is an exclusion rule — it never says when to skip this tool and go straight to danceflow_list_workflows or danceflow_get_workflow for a known item.

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