designer_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the search scope, omitting details like whether it is read-only, rate limits, or what happens with no results. The behavioral profile is minimally conveyed.

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 sentence that efficiently lists multiple knowledge categories. It is front-loaded with the action 'Search across all designer knowledge'. Slightly long due to categories, but no 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?

For a search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the scope adequately. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or result structure, which are important for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema fully covers the 'query' parameter with a description and examples. The tool description adds context by listing knowledge areas and example queries (e.g., 'dark mode', 'typography'), enhancing understanding 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 clearly states it is a search tool across various designer knowledge categories. It uses the verb 'Search' and lists specific topics, distinguishing it from more specific getter tools among siblings. However, it could be more precise about the output returned.

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 implies use when broad knowledge search is needed, and siblings provide more targeted lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like designer_get_personality or when not to use it.

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