search_strategies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs read-only full-text search and filters by approval status, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication, or what happens on no results, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences in Chinese, totaling about 30 characters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and a critical constraint. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a key constraint but lacks details on return format, pagination, sorting, or error handling. For a search tool, more context (e.g., what fields are returned) would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (query, category, limit). The description adds overarching context (full-text search, approved only) but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches strategies and experiences via keyword full-text search and only returns approved strategies. The name 'search_strategies' aligns with the verb 'search' and resource 'strategies'. Among siblings like 'list_strategies' and 'propose_strategy', the description distinguishes by specifying full-text search and approval filter.

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 explicitly states that only approved strategies are returned, indicating when to use this tool (to search approved strategies). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_strategies' for a broader view, but the context is clear enough.

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