Search Configs

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

Annotations already flag read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those flags: it explains the two-phase search process, that matching lines come with line numbers, that patterns must be valid in both Ruby and Python regex, and that multi-line patterns will find nodes but produce no matching lines. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary comes first, followed by the operational flow, concrete usage examples, and then an important cross-language regex caveat. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary padding.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to use this tool correctly. It explains the search behavior, the regex constraint, the line-matching limitation, and when to reach for the tool. The input schema fully documents all seven parameters, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds parameter-level value by warning that the pattern must be valid in both Ruby and Python regex and that lines are matched one at a time, which directly affects how the pattern parameter should be authored. This goes beyond the schema's short 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?

Purpose is stated with a specific verb and resource: "Search the latest configurations of all nodes for a pattern." It clarifies the two-step process (find matching nodes, then fetch and return matching lines), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_node_config, which fetches a single config, or list_nodes, which enumerates nodes.

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 gives concrete, recognizable use cases: "which devices still have telnet enabled" and "where is VLAN 42 configured". This tells an agent when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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