search_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'bounded text resource content' hinting at some size limit but does not explain what 'bounded' means, how results are returned, or any side effects. The tool is a search operation but there is no disclosure about performance implications, caching, or exact matching semantics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action verb.

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 one sentence, front-loading the core action and scope. It is concise and avoids repetition of schema field names. However, it could briefly mention selector options to aid orientation without becoming verbose. Overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too thin to convey how to select JARs (via multiple selector options) or how search semantics work. It leaves the agent guessing about required relationships between parameters, result formats beyond 'text' vs 'json' vs 'toon', and the meaning of 'bounded content'. For a complex search tool with many optional selectors, this is insufficient context.

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 67%, so the schema already documents several parameters (jarPath, coordinates, jarDirectory, jarNamePrefix, workspacePath, format). The description does not add much beyond restating that it searches resource paths/content. It does not clarify how pathQuery and contentQuery interact or default behaviors. With 67% coverage the baseline is 3; the description provides marginal added meaning but not enough to raise above baseline.

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 and resource: 'Search resource paths or bounded text resource content in selected JARs.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like search_class and search_code by focusing on resource paths and content within JARs. The phrase 'in selected JARs' adds scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description indicates it searches resources in JARs, it does not mention exclusions or conditions that would route to siblings like read_resource or inspect_jar. The schema hints at selector options but the description offers no strategic direction.

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