search_library

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

The description reveals no behavioral traits beyond the basic action of searching. Without annotations, it should disclose aspects like whether results are combined across libraries, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The current text is too sparse.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., component IDs, names, metadata), how results are ordered, and whether there are limitations (e.g., search across local vs team). It does not provide this, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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%, so the parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds the context of 'across local file and team libraries', which relates to the scope parameter but does not specify query syntax or result filtering. It adds marginal value beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'components across local file and team libraries', providing a specific and unambiguous purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_nodes' or 'list_components' which also search for components.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_components' or 'scan_design_system'. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over siblings, leaving the agent without direction on optimal usage scenarios.

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