hookmark_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the search scope (names and URLs by default), output format options, and restrictions (names_only, files_only). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage details in a logical flow. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the search behavior, output formats, and key parameters, but could improve by mentioning potential limitations or example use cases. Without annotations or output schema, it adequately informs but has minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'format' options and 'names_only' briefly, but does not provide additional semantic context or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Search Hookmark bookmarks by keyword'), resource ('Hookmark bookmarks'), and scope ('both bookmark names and URLs by default'), distinguishing it from siblings like hookmark_list or hookmark_remove. It explicitly defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage through its explanation of search behavior (e.g., 'by default' searches names and URLs, with options to restrict), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hookmark_list or hookmark_search. It provides some context but lacks direct guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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