search_components

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states that it returns matching names and descriptions, but omits details like search algorithm (fuzzy vs exact), result limits, case sensitivity, or ordering. This is insufficient for a reliable agent decision.

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 redundancy. The first sentence provides the primary action and search scope, the second states the output. Highly efficient 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 simple single-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output. It lacks some behavioral details but is mostly complete given the tool's simplicity. A more comprehensive description could mention result limits or search behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the return format (component names and brief descriptions) and clarifying that keyword can be a name, category, or feature, which aligns with the schema description. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 specifies the action (search), resource (Ant Design components), and search dimensions (keyword or category). It distinguishes from siblings like get_components_by_category by implying this tool handles more varied input (keyword including category) and returns brief descriptions, while siblings are more focused.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_components_by_category or get_all_component_names. The description does not state use cases or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer.

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