Search HelmReleases

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses result ordering (grouped by chart source, ranked by repo deployment counts), the identity/pagination contract via `id`, and an important normalization caveat about chart_source_url collapsing registries with source_urls and resolved_chart for the real chart. That is substantial behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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 purpose and routing to get_release are front-loaded in sentence one, and the grouped/ranked behavior follows logically. The second paragraph is dense and clause-heavy, but each clause carries real information about normalization that would otherwise mislead.

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 three-parameter read-only search with a full output schema, the description adds everything an agent needs: matching semantics, result grouping and ranking, the id-to-get_release handoff, and the normalization traps in chart_source_url/source_urls. No material gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit and offset are already documented, and the description largely reinforces query semantics rather than extending them. It adds the useful note that the returned `id` feeds get_release, but does not clarify pagination behavior or substring edge cases beyond the schema 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?

First sentence gives a specific verb (search), a concrete resource (kubesearch.dev Flux HelmReleases / Argo Applications), and matching semantics (substring, case-insensitive) that distinguish it from siblings like get_release and search_images. It also names the follow-up tool for full details.

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 states the tool mirrors the kubesearch.dev homepage search, gives a concrete example query ('cert-manager'), and routes the agent to get_release for full details. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance against sibling search tools, but usage conditions are clear.

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