catalog.search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context: 'no plugin is loaded' clarifies that the tool does not execute plugin code, and 'untrusted' signals that the results should be treated with caution. This goes beyond the annotations and is behaviorally informative.

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 a single, dense sentence that immediately communicates the core action and key caveat. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information (returns briefs, no plugin loaded) is front-loaded. It is a model of conciseness.

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 tool has two parameters, one required, and no output schema. The description does not describe the return format of the briefs (fields, structure) nor clarify parameter semantics. Given that annotations cover safety, the description still leaves the agent unsure about what constitutes a valid query and what the result will look like, which is a significant gap 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no semantic meaning for 'query' or 'limit'. The description does not explain what the query should contain (e.g., a search term, plugin name, etc.) or what the limit controls. The agent is left to infer parameter semantics from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('plugin briefs'), and adds a crucial qualifier ('compact', 'untrusted', 'no plugin is loaded') that clarifies the nature of the result and the side-effect-free behavior. It is distinct from siblings like catalog.inspect which likely provides detailed inspection.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for use, exclusions, or alternative tools. The phrase 'no plugin is loaded' hints at a safety context but does not explain when this tool is preferred over catalog.inspect or others.

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