content_search

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully warns that discovered files are not certified loadable or auditioned, which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe read-only behavior, return shape, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise, with the main action front-loaded and the critical limitation stated in a separate short sentence. Every sentence adds information, though more structure could have added parameter guidance.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and four undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It tells the agent what content is returned but not how parameters influence results, what the return format looks like, or when to choose this over sibling search tools.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (query, family, limit, offset). The agent gets no added meaning about how these parameters control the search, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('library/patch-level candidates and host plugin links'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools like catalog_search or sound_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools. The caveat about files not being certified is helpful, but it does not explain when content_search should be preferred over alternatives.

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