Where Used — Search a Word Across Integration Flow Content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the wizard-style progressive execution, the scope of search (including credential/user references), and the optional full-tenant search. It does not mention potential limitations like result size or non-destructive nature, but the described behavior is transparent and detailed.

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 longer than typical but is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence earns its place by explaining the wizard steps. It is structured logically, though slightly verbose; a bit of trimming could make it more scannable without losing 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?

Given the tool's complexity, six parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the invocation workflow and search scope well. It does not describe the exact structure of returned lists, but it clearly states what the user will receive (list of packages/flows) and how to proceed, which is sufficient for basic usage.

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 83%, and the description goes far beyond the schema by explaining the conditional interplay between packageId, artifactId, searchAllPackages, and searchAllArtifacts. It adds meaning about the wizard flow and what each omission triggers, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 for a word/text' and names the resource 'integration flow content in the design workspace' with explicit content types (BPMN XML, adapter channel properties, scripts, mappings, parameter files). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_integration_flows or get_flow_configurations.

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 provides explicit step-by-step guidance: if packageId is omitted, returns packages; if artifactId is omitted, returns flows; and tells the agent to call again with the missing field filled. It also explains the alternative flags searchAllPackages and searchAllArtifacts for bypassing the wizard, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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