sylve_api_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - nothing about result size, the default limit of 50, pagination, or what a match record contains. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate but adds little.

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, zero filler, with the resource and the workflow hint front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a zero-required-parameter discovery tool feeding into sylve_api_call, the description never says what a result contains (operation path, method, summary?) or how to feed it into the follow-up call, and there is no output schema to cover that. It is enough to invoke the tool but not enough to use its output confidently.

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?

The description mirrors the query, tag and method parameters, but says nothing about node, limit or context, which together make up the other half of the six parameters (schema coverage 67%). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema documents most parameters on its own, but the description compensates for none of the gap.

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 ('Search all Sylve Swagger operations') plus the three searchable dimensions (keyword, tag, HTTP method), and frames the discovery-then-call workflow. It does not name the closely related siblings sylve_api_schema or sylve_api_call, so the boundary between searching for an operation and inspecting/calling one is left implicit.

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?

'Use this to discover any of the 441 endpoints before calling them' gives clear when-to-use context and establishes this as the entry point of the API workflow. There is no explicit exclusion versus sylve_api_schema (which presumably drills into a single endpoint), so an agent must infer the split.

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