bp_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Search' implies a safe read, and the curated/scraped scope is useful context, but it says nothing about result limits, ranking, case sensitivity, or pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact Args block covering every parameter with no filler. Slightly terse relative to the behavioral gaps it leaves open.

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 values needn't be explained, and the read-only nature of a search is self-evident. The only material omission is matching semantics (partial vs exact, ordering) for a tool whose core purpose is retrieval.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names all three parameters, explains query matches name and description, labels category as an optional filter, and enumerates the source values 'all', 'curated', 'scraped' that the schema lacks as an enum.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Blueprint nodes by name or description') and clarifies the searchable fields. The 'Blueprint' domain distinguishes it from ms_search_nodes and other ms_* tools, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 indicates the search spans 'curated and scraped Blueprint data', which implies when it applies, but it never says when to prefer this over bp_node_info, bp_list_assets, or ms_search_nodes, nor any exclusion conditions.

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