art_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the corpus size (~1,770+), the fields searched, and example query types, but it does not state case sensitivity, matching behavior, result ordering, or output format. This is useful but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and corpus are front-loaded, followed by concrete search dimensions and examples. Every sentence earns its place.

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 whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is searched, the corpus, and when to use it. It lacks explicit return-format details, but the 'find tests' purpose makes the expected output reasonably clear.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the keyword parameter by listing the fields searched and example query patterns, though the schema already contains similar examples. This is modest added 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 states a specific verb ('search'), a clear resource ('all Atomic Red Team tests'), and the exact scope ('full-text'), then enumerates the fields searched. This differentiates it from sibling tools like art_get_tests and art_get_test by emphasizing query-based search across test content.

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 gives explicit use cases: find tests by attack tool, binary, technique pattern, or artifact, with concrete examples. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives for exact test retrieval, so it falls short of a 5.

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