opentrons_search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states it searches and returns results, but does not disclose search behavior, result limits, pagination, or any constraints. It adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the resource (Opentrons API docs) and action (keyword search), with no filler or 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?

For a simple search tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what it does and what it returns (specs and sample code). It could mention return format or limitations, but the schema covers parameters.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (query as search keyword, maxResults as return count with default). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool performs keyword search of Opentrons Python Protocol API & HTTP API documentation and returns relevant specifications and sample code. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource (docs), distinguishing it from sibling operational tools like opentrons_validate_protocol or opentrons_control_run.

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 implies usage for retrieving doc information but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use, and no alternative tools are referenced.

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