Search gists

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by revealing the pagination strategy, the bounded scan, the possibility of incomplete results, and the guarantee that the result reports how much was scanned and whether it was cut short. The unsupported file-content search is also clearly disclosed.

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 sentences carry the full message: purpose, implementation caveat, and limitation plus routing to get_gist. Every sentence earns its place, and the most behaviorally important caveat is front-loaded.

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?

For a complex 9-parameter search tool, the description covers the non-obvious behavioral details, while the input schema fully documents parameters and the output schema covers return values. Nothing needed to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all 9 parameters with defaults, enums, and query syntax. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond restating the 'title/description/topics/owner' search fields, so it does not move above the 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?

States the precise action 'Find gists' and enumerates the searchable fields (title, description, topics, owner), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the get_gist follow-up by positioning this as the discovery step, not the content-reading step.

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 clearly explains why this tool exists — Opengist has no search API — and sets expectations that results are client-side filtered, bounded, and possibly incomplete. It also gives a workflow alternative ('narrow the field here, then read candidates with get_gist') and explicitly rules out file-content search, though it does not directly contrast with list_gists for exhaustive listing.

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