search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return behavior ('ranked matches with required args and how to call each'), which is useful and non-obvious. It omits whether results are capped, how ranking works, and what a zero-match response looks like.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Slightly more could be said without bloat, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is right to summarize the return shape, and it does. It remains incomplete on result limits, the group scoping parameter, and the relationship to the sibling tools it is presumably searching.

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 0% and the description only implicitly maps 'keywords' to the required query param. The group and limit parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, so neither source tells the agent how to scope a search or control result count.

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?

States a specific verb and multi-resource scope: 'Find a tool, effect or transition by keywords.' An agent can tell this is a discovery/meta tool distinct from the functional siblings (effects, masks, audio), though it never explicitly says it searches the sibling catalog.

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?

'Call any listed name directly' implies a search-then-invoke workflow, which is genuine guidance. But there is no statement of when to use this versus paging through effects/timeline/kimo_describe directly, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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