automation_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits: alias-first then id-sorted ranking, ALL-terms-must-match semantics, and the caveat that the peaceful filter means hostile dependency rather than tested compatibility. 'Offline; no world access' partly restates openWorldHint=false, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then ranking and the peaceful caveat. Dense but nearly every clause adds information; the long enumeration of returned field categories is the only mildly padded passage, though it compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating returned categories (materials, initialization, inputs/outputs, causal explanations, version boundaries, hypothesis/validation states), and covers query and peaceful semantics plus the search→read workflow. Pagination parameters remain unexplained, a minor gap for a read-only offline tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains query (whitespace-separated AND terms, empty = all) and peaceful (hostile dependency vs tested compatibility) well, but says nothing about limit or offset despite non-trivial defaults and a 1-10 max, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search bundled Minecraft automation knowledge'), names the language coverage and the empty-query listing behavior, and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling by telling the agent to 'Read an id' for sources, conditions and revisions. An agent can tell this apart from automation_read without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: empty query lists all, all whitespace-separated terms must match (AND semantics), and reading an id yields sources/conditions/revisions. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or a direct pointer to the sibling tool by name, so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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