pio_pkg_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (owner/name specs with latest version and description), which is helpful. It does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but that is implied by 'search'. It also doesn't mention pagination or rate limits. With no annotations, this 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the return type is stated, and examples are concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema (present), so the return values are partially covered there. The description adds that it returns owner/name specs with latest version and description, which aligns with the schema. However, the 'page' parameter is undocumented, and there's no mention of how pagination works or whether results are limited. For a search tool with an output schema, this is mostly complete but misses pagination context.

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 explains the 'query' parameter through examples and explains that 'type' defaults to library and can be platforms or tools. However, it does not explain the 'page' parameter at all. This leaves a gap, especially given the output is likely paginated. It adds some value but not full compensation.

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 the tool searches the PlatformIO registry for libraries, platforms, or tools, and specifies what it returns (owner/name specs with latest version and description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pio_pkg_install, pio_pkg_list, etc., which perform different pkg operations.

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 gives concrete example queries (ArduinoJson, ssd1306 display, mqtt) and notes the default type is library, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use search vs. other package tools (e.g., when to use pio_pkg_list instead), lacking alternative routing. So it's clear but not exhaustive.

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