search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable behavior: it searches unloaded groups, matches name/description/category, reports whether each tool is immediately callable, and provides the exact load_tool_group(...) call when needed. The search semantics are clearly read-only, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: first the purpose, then the key behavioral promise, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the practical usage hint about --lazy is relevant rather than filler.

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 description covers purpose, when to use it, parameter semantics, and interesting return behavior. An output schema exists to formalize the result shape, and no annotations are needed for a clearly read-only search operation. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates. It explains query as space-separated keywords with concrete examples, and explains limit as the maximum result count with its default. This is clear, actionable parameter documentation beyond the schema.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('the full Ghidra tool catalog'), and a distinguishing scope: it searches by keyword including tools whose group is not currently loaded. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_tool_groups and load_tool_group.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to discover the right tool on demand while avoiding the context cost of loading all groups, especially with --lazy. It doesn't spell out when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so it stops just short of a 5.

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