ui_search

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behaviors: it mentions BM25 algorithm, three modes, and filtering. However, it does not clarify read-only nature, response format, pagination, or any limitations such as rate limiting or authentication needs.

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 paragraph of three sentences, efficiently front-loading the purpose, then modes, algorithm, and data source. It is concise but could benefit from bullet points for easier scanning.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or structure of results, which is a notable gap for a search tool. However, it covers modes, filtering, and data source adequately.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by listing example data categories (colors, icons, etc.) and explaining the BM25 algorithm, which enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 defines the tool as searching a UI/UX database, listing included content types (colors, icons, etc.) and explicitly describing three usage modes (search, catalog, template). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on project initialization, code reviews, or design systems.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context about modes and filtering but does not state when not to use it or contrast with other UI-related sibling tools like 'start_ui' or 'ui_design_system'.

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