malcolm_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether it modifies data, any authorization requirements, or performance limits. The description focuses on syntax and parameters but omits essential behavioral traits.

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 somewhat verbose with multiple filter examples, but these are highly relevant and aid understanding. The core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 complexity (filter syntax, four parameters) and the existence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers parameter semantics and usage fully. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., read-only hint) is a gap, preventing a perfect score.

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 description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all four parameters: filters (with examples), limit (range 1-500), time_from and time_to (with dateparser format examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 'Search Malcolm indexed network traffic documents' and specifies the filter syntax, distinguishing it from OpenSearch DSL. This provides a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like search_dsl.

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 explains the filter syntax with examples and notes it uses Malcolm's simple filter syntax (NOT OpenSearch DSL), guiding when to use this tool vs search_dsl. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide comprehensive when-to-use versus other sibling search tools.

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