Search discussions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'Long fields are truncated by default' (behavioral detail) and gives an example, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions required, or side effects. The description is minimal regarding behavioral traits.

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 an example, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Efficiently communicates the essential information.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It covers the main purpose and a key behavior (truncation), but does not describe return format, pagination, or other common search behaviors. Could be more complete for a search tool.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by explaining 'using Flarum's gambit/search (filter[q])' for the query parameter and 'Long fields are truncated by default' relating to maxFieldChars. This adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Search query string' and truncation parameter descriptions.

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 'Full-text search across discussions' and specifies use of Flarum's gambit/search mechanism. It provides an example, making the purpose unmistakable. The tool is differentiated from siblings like flarum_list which likely list without searching.

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 mentions the search mechanism and gives an example, implying it is for search queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like flarum_list or flarum_get. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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