langflow_kb_search_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: matching is exact, demonstrated by the 'ocr' vs 'ocr_engine' example, which is exactly the kind of search-semantics detail annotations cannot express.

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 short paragraphs, purpose front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious matching rule. No filler; the example is the only slightly padded element but it earns its place by clarifying exact matching.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description never indicates what a result contains (component names? field lists?) or in what shape, despite mentioning a response_format parameter in the schema. The input side is well covered, but the return-value side is left entirely to inference.

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 67% and the schema already documents tipo and nombre with examples. The description adds meaning beyond that: the mutual exclusion rule ('pasa nombre o tipo, no ambos') and the exact-match semantics that govern how values must be supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: searching the whole catalog for components that declare a field with a given name, or for fields of a given type. This is far more specific than the sibling langflow_kb_list_components, though it never names a sibling to differentiate explicitly.

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 conveys the use condition (look up fields by exact name or by type) and a constraint that name and type are passed one at a time, not both. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over langflow_kb_describe_component or langflow_kb_search_docs, so the agent must infer the routing.

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