ui_tree_resource_search

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior—searching a saved resource without loading the whole tree—and mentions that results include path and index_path. However, it does not describe side effects (none obvious but unstated), limits, or behavior around missing/ambiguous parameters. It is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, then usage context, then output routing. Every sentence contributes value, and code formatting makes the resource types and sibling functions easy to parse.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too lean. It covers the purposeful story but omits critical details such as how snapshot_id vs resource_uri are used, what the search criteria match against, and what happens if no matches are found. It leaves too much for the agent to infer from parameter names.

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 has 9 parameters with zero description coverage, so the JSON description needed to explain parameter semantics but does not mention a single one. All parameter meaning is left to the bare parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for correctly filtering or selecting a resource.

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 identifies the action ('Search a saved ui_tree resource'), the key advantage ('without loading the full tree into context'), and distinguishes it from siblings like ui_tree and ui_tree_resource_get_node. It also hints at the output shape and how it connects to related tools, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool after ui_tree(delivery='resource') when only a few controls from a large snapshot are needed, and names the follow-up tools for navigation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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