command_interface_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is searched, not whether the operation is read-only, how matching behaves, whether results are ordered, or what happens with no matches. A search tool should disclose at least basic search semantics and result shape.

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 with no filler and puts the core action and search fields first. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices needed detail.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotationsyb and no output schema, the one-sentence description is substantially incomplete. It does not explain the role of session_id/window_title, the effects of max_results, the meaning of include_timings, or what the search returns. An agent would need to guess at most invocation details.

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 adds meaning to the query parameter by mentioning title, path, and navigation URL, but it leaves five of six parameters (section, session_id, max_results, window_title, include_timings) completely unexplained. The agent cannot reliably know how session_id and window_title scope the search or what include_timings controls.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('live command-interface commands') and narrows the search scope to 'title, path or navigation URL.' It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like command_interface_commands or command_interface_sections.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as command_interface_commands or window_command_interface. The description implies a search use case but provides no context about when searching is preferable to listing or browsing commands.

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