search_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It reveals that matching is fuzzy, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema, but it does not describe the response shape, result ordering, or any potential performance/cost characteristics. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose and key behavior without any fluff or repetitive content.

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 fairly simple search tool, the description covers what it does, but the absence of an output schema means the return format (e.g., list of component objects) is not described. The schema and sibling context hint at the likely result shape, but the description leaves this implicit.

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 both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions covering 100% of what they mean. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond restating that the query can match name, category, tag, or description, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'VengeanceUI components' while specifying the search dimensions (name, category, tags, or description) and method (fuzzy matching). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_components and get_components_by_category.

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 this tool is for flexible, multi-field searches, which is a distinct use case from listing all components or retrieving a specific one. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_components_by_category, so the guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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